DNSFilter - Agent-based and network-based filtering

[gsk]

Hi All,

 

We're also looking at the possibility of using DNSFilter as our filtering platform. It seems to work well in testing both with the agent and with DNS settings defined at the router/dhcp level. The downsides I can see are that it doesn't and can't log google search terms. We've had this enabled for a while with KCSIE 23 and haven't found any great use other than more useless data and false-positives - would it be missed?

 

Thanks,

[PaddyNewman]

DNS filtering is a sticking plaster, I'd personally consider it absolutely lowest tier backup filtering.

 

Most DNS filters see the domain, and only the domain, no path or anything. Want certain Wikipedia pages, no go, want to allow BBC but block iPlayer, no.

 

Unless this one is better, but assuming no search terms means they don't decrypt. Plenty of easy/cheap filtering platforms around, but this feels similar to the light touch webtitan filter. Fine to be quite forceful with blocks but limited flexibility.

[sigma]

As regards keyword filtering ability, it depends on whether you rely on broadband filtering product alone or whether you have something such as Impero in place which gives a far more holistc view of "words" on a screen.

 

A school would need to be very clear if/why it was not meeting the published "standard" as it coud lead to difficuties is complying with KCSIE and Prevent mandatory guidance.

 

This standard is published as guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meeting-digital-and-technology-standards-in-schools-and-colleges/filtering-and-monitoring-standards-for-schools-and-colleges

 

 

Technical requirements to meet the standard  

 

Make sure your filtering provider is: 

 

a member of Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) 

signed up to Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit list (CTIRU) 

blocking access to illegal content including child sexual abuse material (CSAM) 

 

If the filtering provision is procured with a broadband service, make sure it meets the needs of your school or college.

 

Your filtering system should be operational, up to date and applied to all: 

 

users, including guest accounts

school owned devices

devices using the school broadband connection

 

Your filtering system should:

 

filter all internet feeds, including any backup connections  

be age and ability appropriate for the users, and be suitable for educational settings  

handle multilingual web content, images, common misspellings and abbreviations  

identify technologies and techniques that allow users to get around the filtering such as VPNs and proxy services and block them

provide alerts when any web content has been blocked

 

With all the different filters I have ever used, I still find the "unknown unknowns", by way of identifying content that has been accessed that shouldn't have been "challenging".

[gsk]

As regards keyword filtering ability, it depends on whether you rely on broadband filtering product alone or whether you have something such as Impero in place which gives a far more holistc view of "words" on a screen.

 

A school would need to be very clear if/why it was not meeting the published "standard" as it coud lead to difficuties is complying with KCSIE and Prevent mandatory guidance.

 

This standard is published as guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meeting-digital-and-technology-standards-in-schools-and-colleges/filtering-and-monitoring-standards-for-schools-and-colleges

 

 

 

 

With all the different filters I have ever used, I still find the "unknown unknowns", by way of identifying content that has been accessed that shouldn't have been "challenging".

 

Thanks, yes we're obviously keen to meet the standards and above all ensure that we are safeguarding the children. However, I've not seen anything that mentions search engine keywords as a requirement. While we have been using it, the search keywords have been of very little value overall and zero value for safeguarding. The 'very little' value has been in taking the temperature of what the kids are talking about at the moment and whether it warrants being addressed in assembly or such like. Eg, "what does skibidi toilet mean".

 

There doesn't seem to be much appetite in the education space for having human supervision as a 'monitoring strategy'. Of course filters should be in place to prevent access to some things, but I do feel like the latest KCSIE has given a shot in the arm to the argument of 'make the tech do everything'.

 

Also very little mention of preparing children for what to do and how to respond to things that do pop up that aren't appropriate.

[sigma]

Thanks, yes we're obviously keen to meet the standards and above all ensure that we are safeguarding the children. However, I've not seen anything that mentions search engine keywords as a requirement. While we have been using it, the search keywords have been of very little value overall and zero value for safeguarding. The 'very little' value has been in taking the temperature of what the kids are talking about at the moment and whether it warrants being addressed in assembly or such like. Eg, "what does skibidi toilet mean".

 

There doesn't seem to be much appetite in the education space for having human supervision as a 'monitoring strategy'. Of course filters should be in place to prevent access to some things, but I do feel like the latest KCSIE has given a shot in the arm to the argument of 'make the tech do everything'.

 

Also very little mention of preparing children for what to do and how to respond to things that do pop up that aren't appropriate.

 

I agree, I can't find any requirement for search engine "keyword" blocking/monitoring in either Safeguarding or Prevent documentation. It seems to be a marketing feature.

 

I also think it has little to no value in that capacity. It catches too many typo's, too much autocomplete (catches pupils typing arse but clicking on the autocomplete of "Arsenal"), catches &pq= when the previous query was blocked but the current search is fine, and with silly short words, they turn up in totally unrelated strings when badly specified (as per our filtering provider's list, and no longer used by us).

 

The only genuinely useful words (we have others), are "unblocked" and "unbanned" (and variations of), which are searches used to deliberately bypass filtering, but only really act as a trip-wire to instigate a poke about in particular pupils activities.

 

Having words such as "bomb" in a list, are counterproductive as any decent filter should be able to automatically allow relevant content such as relating to WW2 and block any illegal or inappropriate terrorist related content - without triggering Safeguarding alerts every time there’s a GCSE History class.

 

As regards preparing children for what to do if they see inappropriate things, I find that Primary pupils will report to an adult, and then I get asked to investigate and respond accordingly, which has lately meant blocking yet another Ad Network that wasn't categorised correctly. For High School pupils, I rarely (never), ever get told, although activity patterns indicate "something" has been accessed as one pupil finds something and then they tell their mates. Maybe with single instances they are embarrassed to report them?