Warning - SWGFL Filtering Test

[gsk]

Hi All,

 

Apologies if this has already been highlighted. I had a quick look and couldn't see anything.

 

Paragraph 142 of the 2023 KCSIE (Keeping Children Safe In Education) recommends schools use the SWGFL Filtering Test website (Test Your Internet Filter | SWGfL Test Filtering) to check that categories are filtered including CSA, Extremist Content and Adult Content. Doing this test will use your local device to check websites. One of which is a well-known adult site. Therefore the firewall log will show that the device the test was performed from will have attempted to access that site. It caught us out when we were reviewing the filtering logs and took a little while to link it back to the test which had been performed through the site above.

 

I would anticipate that on reading KCSIE, DSLs and Governors may use that site to check for themselves that filtering is working and therefore generate these entries in the filtering logs. Clearly, if the wider context isn't known, a wild goose chase will likely follow with differing outcomes if the fact that a legitimate ping has occurred from using that test isn't known.

 

Hopefully this will be useful to others to have this in the back of their mind.

 

Thanks,

Edited September 14, 2023 by gsk

[filteringtech]

I get your reasoning, and indeed ran the test myself at a couple of schools months ago.

 

There are things that concern me.

 

The first is, that we "have to test". I think its reasonable to assume that the "well known sites" will be blocked, and you are only really going to know that your filtering is working if you can find and try to access some "new" and or obscure ones, not just adult sites either.

 

An image search using any search engine that isn't blocked and doesn't support "safe search" (if you or your provider allow such a thing for pupils), will suggest if your filtering is working or not. You need a process that logs that you are going to do this, that somebody else knows, and what the outcome is.

 

I am actually more worried that by testing the obvious (well known sites), we are lulled into a false sense of complacency.

 

It may be that a governor or DSL does the SWgfL test to see if we are really checking the logs?

 

I get concerned by things like finding thngs such various "online 1 to 1 adult video chats with strangers" were being accessed by a student teacher. Admittedly on their own device, but going through our proxy as the sites were classified as "Social Networking" which is allowed for staff.

 

Looking at logs for things that are blocked is much about about looking for FP's as it is about behaviour issues and trends. Only by sampling the "allowed" (which I do by dropping the user field for privacy), to look for "unusual things" will you find the real problems.

[ajsw_uk]

We're very open about how TestFiltering works. You can read more in our FAQs: https://testfiltering.com/faq/

With the new changes to Keeping Children Safe in Education and the Standards, your DSL should be leading this, supported by the IT team.

It's also worth noting that TestFiltering is only part of the annual review and that if you discover something concerning in the logs there should be a process for reporting this to your DSL.

[tom_newton]

There's a degree to which TF is there to say "have you got filtering, and is it configured in a way you'd expect" not "is the filtering any cop". That's an interesting and subtle difference.

The latter is bloody hard to test - BECTA used to certify, but that's long gone, sadly.

 

I was speaking to the TF folks the other day, and wondering about wether the filter vendors could use a "canary URL" (eg we all agree to put prn.testfiltering.com into our porn lists, ang gmb.test... into gambling). Would need the major vendors to agree... not impossible