Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Low-Cost Tools To Track Employees' Web Use?

First time accepted submitter red-nz writes "I come from New Zealand where new anti-piracy laws have come into effect that prosecute the owner of the internet connection for copyright violations. This is now a major issue for businesses, as they of course don't want to be liable for employee infringements. We have some good firewalls that are capable of doing basic filtering by 'category,' e.g. P2P sites, etc., but ideally would love to find a low-cost or even better Open Source alternative to expensive reporting tools (such as WebMarshal or Websense) that is capable of reporting on individual employees' usage with friendly reports (i.e. dont just show the URLs of the 3000 items their browser requested that day). It may be too much to ask but if the software could also show how long they spent on each site, it would be fantastic. Anyone got any winners out there they can share?"

384 comments

  1. and it's thwarted with...... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A simple encrypted proxy or VPN over port 80 to home.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by imemyself · · Score: 4, Informative

      True - but then it would be the person at home (or who runs the proxy) who would appear to be sending the traffic. So it would not be the business's problem.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    2. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anrego · · Score: 1

      True but pointless.

      The reason someone torrents from work is to use their employers bandwidth, which is usually substantially more than they have at home.

      If you are going to ultimately be transfering the data from your home connection.. why not just do it from home...

    3. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by said213 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "which is usually substantially more than they have at home."

      I realize that this is not the case for everyone, but my home cable connection is at least one degree of magnitude greater than the bandwidth available at my place of employ. The reason someone torrents from work is because they can do it while hiding behind someone else's liability.

      --
      help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
    4. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

      which brings the point that unless your computers are very expensively locked down just about everything you could do is useless

      you might be able to to something at the gateway but then again you will still have problems. i would say that this law has mandated the purchase of some very expensive hardware. Even if you find something cheap that would work you still could be tagged for not complying with the law due to "not having the required certified hardware".

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    5. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anrego · · Score: 0

      The reason someone torrents from work is because they can do it while hiding behind someone else's liability.

      Good point, although parent's VPN idea is still moot as that infringing traffic is now coming from the connection owned by the infringer.

    6. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason someone torrents from work is because they can do it while hiding behind someone else's liability.

      That doesn't sound very plausible. You're much more likely to be fired or otherwise suffer career damage for downloading at work than you are to be sued or whatever for downloading stuff at home. Would many people even believe that they're less likely to be individually identified in the event of a work dispute through using the work PC? I guess your employer might shield you but it sounds like a long shot if you're talking about actual legal action.

    7. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason someone torrents from work is because they can do it while hiding behind someone else's liability.

      That doesn't sound very plausible. You're much more likely to be fired or otherwise suffer career damage for downloading at work than you are to be sued or whatever for downloading stuff at home. Would many people even believe that they're less likely to be individually identified in the event of a work dispute through using the work PC? I guess your employer might shield you but it sounds like a long shot if you're talking about actual legal action.

      Correction, your *employer* is much more likely to suffer damage. If the company is a typical mom-n-pop they have no means of telling who did what, so if the hammer does come down it would take a volunteered confession to actually fire someone over it.

    8. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would it be though? The law states the owner of the Internet connection. Not where it appears to be coming from. Presumably that still remains with the business.

    9. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      uh, the "reason" someone torrents from work is because they are at work.
      if they were at home, they'd torrent there.

      maybe they'll lose their job and have lots of time to download stuff at home, but i'm sure they're not thinking "this is great i have so much more bandwidth here" nor are they thinking "this is great now no one will know who i really am because i'm hiding behind a corporate network"

      they're thinking "damn i hate my job, i'm so bored, i'll download some stuff to pass the time"

    10. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if it is done correct. in my office, i block all traffic completely and only route it through my proxy that requires authentication. i have separate groups with different black-lists; and MIME type restrictions in place as well. it works very well for the most part (some things are problematic like activation, but i have a pass-thru list on the PIX firewall itself that allows it through.

      as for proxy, i have it sitting on the mail server, on a sun system, using their web proxy server 4.

    11. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Encrypted traffic over port 80 is easy to detect. A policy to block it and fire anyone using it wouldn't take very long to become a policy in an environment that wants to monitor all your web traffic.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    12. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by grub · · Score: 1

      A proxy can be configured to block everything but legitimate HTTP requests. It's not just "port 80 == allow out"

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    13. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Spunkee · · Score: 1

      Any ISP logs, etc. regarding the content accessed would show it to be accessed from the home's internet connection -- not the business's.

    14. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Sorry but Cable internet at home is faster than the T3 we have here at work. most businesses dont have a T3 but instead have a T1 that most DSL can equate or beat.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      I personally like socks over port 443, encrypted traffic on the expected encrypted port!

    16. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by pcardno · · Score: 1

      And it immediately goes from being a relatively minor slap on the wrists disciplinary issue for accessing dodgy websites to being a gross misconduct instant dismissal issue for deliberately going out of your way to circumvent corporate policy.

      --
      --- Band: Joey Ultra
    17. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      except that the port 80 stuff is easily configured with a scramble key and HTTP RQ legitimacy, with transport, etc. TCP packet comes to server, it gets encoded--the whole description of what it is. Client connects to client-end SOCKS proxy server [Proxy Client], [Proxy Client] makes http request that says "HTTP GET /index.html?session=ENCODEDSHIT HTTP/1.1 blahblahblah html head body (p)ENCODED ENCRYPTED DATA(/p) img src=fubar.gif MORE DATA COMING CHECK FUBAR.GIF" and then it "HTTP GET /fubar.gif HTTP/1.1" "HTTP POST /otherlinx.php" and so on. HAVE FUN, SHIT HEAD.

    18. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Encrypted traffic over port 80 is easy to detect. A policy to block it and fire anyone using it

      Yep. and you'd stop people wasting time accessing banks, email, etc.

      And fire anynoe who clicks on a https link. Zero tolerance is the only way to keep the *AAs profits safe.

    19. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      All of this can be easily thwarted by the following

      GPO to lock down browser history options, script to pull browser history from system nightly, browser history viewer.

      You see, edge hardware is effective, but browser history will tell all.

    20. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1996 called, they want their preconceptions about business internet connections back.

    21. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      How about having a webserver in a non-totalitarian country, have it download whatever you want to download, the download it over the border through (S)FTP?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    22. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck! I'm protected by 5 proxies!

    23. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention I'd like some information on the home cable internet connection thats faster than symmetrical 44Mbps.

    24. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by grub · · Score: 1

      It's easy to limit HTTP request lengths.

      Sure, there's usually a way around it for a dedicated and knowledgeable person. That would demonstrate premeditated circumvention of company policy. An easy excuse to fire the person.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    25. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Not in the slightest.

      "I'm bored". 3 clicks later you're downloading stuff that will take a while to finish. Still bored? Yeah, thought so.

      Two reasons to torrent from the office. First, as mentioned above, is bandwidth. Second, also mentioned above, is liability.

      I don't usually reply to AC but I was bored and this took 15 seconds.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    26. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by bmearns · · Score: 1

      HTTPS goes over port 443, not 80.

      --
      Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    27. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      most businesses dont have a T3 but instead have a T1 that most DSL can equate or beat.

      And, ironically, most T1's are provisioned over DSL these days. Businesses think they're getting a better SLA with a T1. I usually convince them to get DSL and Cable and setup failover between them and they're quite happy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    28. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      ORLY? My father-in law has a 768kb/256kb business line for $60/mo from the same cable company in the same region that provides me with 25Mb/2Mb for $65/mo.

      --
      Good-bye
    29. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      in that case it technically is the users home connection that is downloading the infringing content, it dosn't appear to be, it flat out is. Running a proxy or a VPN is pretty much the same as the user downloading it at home onto a disk and bringing the disk in to work.

    30. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by gregrah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Keep in mind that the originally poster is from New Zealand. Broadband internet in New Zealand is not like we are used to in the United States; it's all based on metered billing and has been since the start. In fact - as a student in New Zealand I used to get charged per MB (and quite a bit, actually) when using the school's computer labs.

      The result is that monthly quotas end up being just as important (if not moreso) than bandwidth to a typical user. For example, take a look at these broadband prices and the extremely low (by US standards) "data allowances".

      I'm pretty sure that the case where a employee has a better connection at home than at work would be quite rare in NZ.

    31. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And for every business like your father-in-law's, there's at least 2 or 3 cheating and getting the residential pricing.

    32. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My home cable internet connection is faster than my workplace's internet connection because I share the latter with a lot more people.

    33. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Lev13than · · Score: 1

      Not if they're running a vnc session on their home computer through an ssh tunnel. At that point you'd need a keylogger, but even that wouldn't capture everything. Maybe screen grabs? How about a video camera mounted over the employee's shoulder? The whole idea of staff monitoring gets messy pretty fast.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    34. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ORLY? My father-in law has a 768kb/256kb business line for $60/mo from the same cable company in the same region that provides me with 25Mb/2Mb for $65/mo.

      I'm pretty sure you're not in New Zealand, because it's always metered or capped there. Few people worry about speed, because the caps are very very low.

    35. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If you have a decent connection, you can download a TV show episode with a decent number of seeds in ~15m. Depending on how much time the employee expecting to be bored, I could see them download stuff to watch during work hours.

    36. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      You don't even need unrestricted HTTP:

      aptitude install iodine -> TCP over DNS.

    37. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Not if they're running a vnc session on their home computer through an ssh tunnel.

      If the purpose was for the NZ copyright law, then your subsequent questions don't matter as they're based on that premise.

      You see, if the user is using their home PC to access the internet, any crap they do there goes to their IP. Less about pr0n, more about 3-strikes copyright. If the user torrents from their own connection, the company won't care because they won't get disconnected.

    38. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      HTTPS goes over port 443, not 80.

      By default. Not necessarily. You can set the webserver to use HTTPS over Port 80 or whatever other port you like.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    39. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but i'm just saying you can't TECHNICALLY stop it. The above would be extremely obvious. And an HTTP request length limit is fine; you'd basically be irritating an HTTP server just like an AJAX script, sending bits and pieces of chunked-up packets. Inefficient, but effective. This is a side channel attack, not an optimal low-latency high-throughput best-effort delivery system.

    40. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Don't most medium sized + businesses have multi homing on a T1 (reliability) plus the local equivalent of Comcast business class (performance) by now?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    41. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      And I am guessing your father-in-law's business line has a guaranteed throughput of X while yours depends how many of your neighbors are also sharing your connection. Business connections are generally more becasue they are dedicated circuits and are not shared among however many customers the cable company has signed up for their "unlimited bandwidth" connections on a limited bandwidth pipe. You get what you pay for in general. There is a reason non-business class connections are cheaper.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    42. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Or ping-tunnel (apt-cache show ptunnel) -> TCP over ICMP.

    43. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by fermion · · Score: 1
      It amazes me how quickly everyone takes this to be an attack on their personal ability to do however one wishes instead of a protection of a firms assets and ultimately the ability of individuals to maintain current positions. When I was younger I would see salespeople rack up huge 976 charges thinking they were cheating the owner. In fact this only forced him, eventually, to lay off a salesperson.

      Obviously this is a matter of protecting the business. Bypassing it is easy, and only harmful if the employee is not getting work done.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    44. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by bmearns · · Score: 1

      True enough, but "1u3hr"'s comment was that blocking encrypted data going over port 80 would prevent people from following HTTPS links and using online banking, etc., which wouldn't be the case in general because the vast majority of "legitimate" HTTPS sites are going to be on 443.

      --
      Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    45. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by somersault · · Score: 2

      If you're on a VPN then the data still ends up being stored on your computer, so if someone is downloading a torrent onto a business machine, the business could still end up in trouble. Your home connection is just another hop on the data's journey, the same as any other switch that it passes through on its way to you. Both the home connection and business connection would be involved in the download, though since the traffic between your house and work is encrypted, then a naive observer might assume that the home connection is the end point.

      If you're just connecting into a remote terminal then I agree with you though, the data isn't getting into the business in that case

      --
      which is totally what she said
    46. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2
      All of what you say is true, and if the employer's concern is whether or not the employees are actually, you know, working (as opposed to arguing with others here on /., lol), then you raise several valid points. However, from OP's question, it seems like (s)he is more interested in making sure the business doesn't get hit with file sharing lawsuits when employees are goofing off on-line rather than making sure the employees aren't goofing off on-line in the first place. Although, to be fair, towards the end of the post, (s)he did start asking more "...and while we're at it, if we could see how much time employees are wasting on-line, that would be great" kind of questions, so I could be completely wrong.

      Anyway, on to OP's question. For filtering HTTP traffic, you can use a Squid proxy server with squidGuard or Dan's Guardian (we use squidGuard where I work) along with a firewall rule to allow HTTP from the proxy server, but to redirect all other HTTP traffic to the proxy. It's not difficult to tack on some reporting tools to Squid -- in fact, I would expect that there are already some open source tools available, although I haven't looked for any. If you want to restrict other protocols, you could consider port-based firewall rules and only allow protocols for which there is a verified business need. Again, we do this where I work with a Linux-based firewall that uses an open source tool called Firehol to generate iptables rules, which makes filtering stupid-simple. You create two lines that say something to the effect of...:

      client "<allowed-protocol-1 allowed-protocol-2...allowed-protocol-n" allow
      client all reject

      for example:

      client "http dns smtp pop3" allow
      client all reject

      ...and that's it. You have now explicitly allowed just a select few protocols and nothing else. It's still not foolproof -- since this is port-based filtering, you're hosed if someone is running some kind of file sharing service on an allowed port -- but in NZ, is it necessary to actually block all P2P activity, or do you just need to show that you've taken reasonable precautions to prevent P2P activity? If the first, you're hosed. You can't prevent every possible way of infringing, no matter how hard you try. In that case, just shut off your Internet connection. If the second, this should probably be good enough.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    47. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      If you are going to ultimately be transfering the data from your home connection.. why not just do it from home...

      1) Download at work to take advantage of (presumably -- not true in my case, however) faster bandwidth at work.
      2) Transfer to USB thumb drive (much faster than even a fast Internet connection).
      3) Take home and upload to your home PC
      4) ???
      5) Profit!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    48. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just said "I realize that this is not the case for everyone," then continued to say "The reason someone torrents from work", Perhaps you should read the first part of your sentence again.

    49. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by said213 · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension cannot be taught.

      --
      help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
    50. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by rgviza · · Score: 2

      " If the first, you're hosed. You can't prevent every possible way of infringing, no matter how hard you try. "

      Actually, using a whitelist proxy and firewall rules (deny all, allow email server, proxy server) you can prevent every possible way of infringing. Simply deny all, allow work related domains through proxy. Let them do the rest of their surfing on their smartphones, give them a slight raise and make them pay for their own phones (so if they steal with their phones, it's their own account). Strip all email attachments except pdf and office docs. Limit message body size. Limit attachment size Rate limit incoming email messages and alarm on unusual activity (more than 10 messages from one address, 250k email limit with a file upload script on your web server for larger files, which sends them to quarantine)

      Done... This will immediately shutdown all p2p in your network, break pirate bay, warez sites, warez news servers, child porn, and lots of other badness.

      Provide three examples of high dollar infringement settlements to your CEO/CIO, offer your solution. Let THEM decide if a week of your time adding domains to a list  and setting up a security model that works is cheaper than getting sued. You'd be killing a lot of birds with one stone.

      Simply tell them you can prevent everything with a white list solution,or you can do it some other way and the company will always be one step behind it's employees' p2p efforts.

      This will have the added benefit of greatly reducing your attack surface due to web surfing as well. Default deny is the only truly secure way to run your network.

      If you have already implemented default deny and defense in depth, you don't need to do anything to comply with this law except clean out the stuff you don't know from the white lists.

      This completely eliminates the need to monitor your employees and track their activity. You don't need to monitor known goodness.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    51. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by chispito · · Score: 2

      The reason someone torrents from work is because they can do it while hiding behind someone else's liability.

      Because that season of True Blood is worth so much more than your job.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    52. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      I just pull the network cable and plug in my phone to surf.

    53. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      With the global recession affecting every businesses profit, by far the cheapest way to handle both inappropriate downloading, and the cost of monitoring inappropriate downloads is to create a law that allows it, otherwise one is expensively breaking the law.

    54. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That depends on the firewalls in use. More modern firewalls (McAfee Firewall Enterprise [formerly Sidewinder], Palo Alto Networks Firewall, etc.) perform application checks such as ensuring that only HTTP and not HTTPS goes over port 80 and vice versa for port 443, and certainly someone trying to use IPSec over port 80 is going to get stopped. Some web filters can check the IP address ranges in use to determine if they're traditionally assigned to home use and block them. Our web filter can do this so that we have fewer people connecting to their home systems. It's not perfect as the databases are still catching up and sometimes shift to other uses, though we often catch users when report time comes around and half of their web traffic is to an unidentified IP address.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    55. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      All of this can be easily thwarted by the following

      GPO to lock down browser history options, script to pull browser history from system nightly, browser history viewer.

      You see, edge hardware is effective, but browser history will tell all.

      This is only true if you have your computers on a domain, and disable InPrivate browsing through GPO. Of course, you also need to disable USB ports, optical drives, and file downloading to prevent someone using a copy of PortableFirefox in Private Browsing mode. And since downloading from the Internet is pretty much the whole point for a lot of workers, this basically kills all their productivity, just to be able to use a back-asswords way of doing tracking.

      Block every port out at the firewall, except 80, and 110/143/995/993 if your email is hosted offsite (but only allow them to your email host.) and monitor usage at the firewall. That prevents any screwing around by the user.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    56. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So go over port 443? ;)

    57. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Renegrade · · Score: 1

      Canada is getting this way, at least with the large providers. I think Bell tops out at 75 gigs/month on a Fibe 25 connection (25mbit/sec down, 7mbit/sec up). I think you can eat that up in a single standard work shift.

      Of course, I've had a connection with them solidly since 1998, and my grandfathered plan is an actual unlimited data plan, but that means I can't upgrade to a Fibe25 connection (without paying a lot of money for their "data insurance", which is still less than unlimited even if you buy it three times) as I'd have to cancel the old contract.

      Bell Fibe 25 pricing
      Rogers pricing
      (Rogers "Extreme" internet is similar to Fibe 25, although upload speeds are 1/7th as fast..)

    58. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any ISP logs, etc. regarding the content accessed would show it to be accessed from the home's internet connection -- not the business's.

      If that's the case then it sounds like the solution to the problem: Have the business pay for some rack space in a country with less-draconian laws, then put the entire business behind a VPN that appears from the internet to come from the IP in the country with sensible laws.

    59. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, using a whitelist proxy and firewall rules (deny all, allow email server, proxy server) you can prevent every possible way of infringing.

      No it isn't.

      Strip all email attachments except pdf and office docs.

      See, you've already lost. The pirate sends an email to his pirate friend, who sends back pirated which is either in text format natively or base64 encoded and pasted into a word document. And the size limits don't save you, because there is plenty of pirated material smaller than the size limit and equally as much legitimate material over it.

      I mean sure, you can lock down a computer enough that users can't pirate anything. Just disconnect it from the network -- or the electrical outlet. The problem is that you can't do it simultaneously with users being able to do their jobs.

    60. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would anyone bother doing that? You can come up with ways to defeat anything, but there's a point where no one will jump through the all the hoops.

    61. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another big reason for using employer bandwidth in NZ is that your home internet connection has a data cap, and using more costs the offender $$.

    62. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Sorry but Cable internet at home is faster than the T3 we have here at work. most businesses dont have a T3 but instead have a T1 that most DSL can equate or beat.

      You won't find T anything in New Zealand. It's one of those things which separate US (possibly NANP) telecoms from the rest of the planet.

    63. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mywhitewolf · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure any company that finds out you've been torrenting their bandwidth will fire you. especially if they get legal threats from the MPAA. You could lose your job, which could cost you substantially more than your internet connection.

    64. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of dorks, what is mpbs?

    65. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      You've no idea what you're talking about, we get T lines in Australia and don't use NANP.

    66. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Cool. Good way to make way for me in the hierarchy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    67. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      Which puts you back at square one because encrypted naughty traffic could just be sent over 443 instead of 80.

    68. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      how is downloading pirated software / movies not demonstrate premeditated circumvention of company policy.

    69. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      .....a non-totalitarian country.....

      There is such a thing?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    70. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      But that's the point. There is no reason to lock down everything to within an inch of killing everyone. If you're worried about unreasonable liability rules, use some kind of tunnel to move your internet exit point to a country with more rational liability rules. If you just want to block The Pirate Bay, black hole the DNS entry in your DNS server and go on your way. Why block millions of useful websites and applications to stop mere thousands of undesired ones?

    71. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by rnswebx · · Score: 1

      Do you live in New Zealand? From my understanding, it's quite expensive to do many high bandwidth activities at home due to their low caps.

    72. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      There's still the risk that if the MAFIAA types somehow find out that the content was actually accessed at a business through a VPN, that they would go after the business just because it has deeper pockets.

    73. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason a person in NZ torrents from work is because the cap on their home connection is so miserable. Business data plans are way higher cost per month, but large corporates say on Wellington citylink or Telecom/Telstra fibre circuits can easily see 200GB+ a day in torrents if someone exploits it.

    74. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Or easier yet, monitor usage for several months and white list valid sites while default blocking everything.

      I do that at a couple sites I mange where the employees have consistently abused the internet to the point it was causing virus problems and creating serious work flow issues while some employees played internet games instead of taking care of customers. They still get to surf some non-business sites, have two dedicated systems they can use to check outside email and stuff, but for the most part, are locked into approved sites and programs on the systems.

    75. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Not for business accounts. We have a 20 Mb pipe and it's all you can eat. Admittedly it's bloody expensive, but at least it's uncapped.

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    76. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As mentioned above, this isn't the case in New Zealand.

      My home connection is 80Gb a month and 'as fast as possible', which is about 10 Mb/s. My work connection is for 10Gb a month between 10 people and is 5Mb/s.

    77. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      How is that easier? Setting up a tunnel to a cloud server and then making it the default gateway on your router only takes a few minutes. (Naturally the business would have to consult a lawyer to see whether this would actually reduce their liability, but that goes for a white list too: Suppose you add something to the white list and the users find some corner of that website where they can get pirated stuff. Is the fact that you explicitly approved it going to make you worse off liability-wise?)

    78. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by shermo · · Score: 1

      If that's how much home, badly serviced connections cost, guess how much work connections with uptime guarantees cost.

      I have 10 times as much allowance at home as I do at work, and the work connection is shared between 10 people.

      A few months ago someone accidentally downloaded 2 Gb of podcasts. It cost us $100.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    79. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, the whitelist would be more work related then general surfing so if some corner of the list allows downloading of pirated materials. your pretty much screwed anyways.

      Costs and defending against liability is what makes it easier. You essentially have to pay for several internet connections to proxy from another country and even if that technically gets you beyond the reach of the law, that will not be known for sure until someone accuses you and it is litigated. While that is going on, there is damage to the company reputation and all that stuff to deal with. It's a lot easier to maintain a reputation by saying, we put x, Y, and Z, in place in an attempt to make this impossible to happen but unfortunately, something got by us and the we will pay the fines and work harder on ensuring it doesn't happen again, then it would be by saying, well, technically we are not guilty because we routed all our traffic through another country and used a shell company to lease the connections there so the shell company is liable and this will be proven in court some 6months or longer when we have our day.

      Of course this would be exposed by a disgruntles ex employee if you are wondering how they would ever know. I've seen ex-employees do all sorts of crazy things attempting to get their former employer in some sort of trouble. And I've seen former employers do some pretty alarming things in efforts to snowball ex employees. I've walked away from customers who insist on badmouthing the former IT staff and employees.

      But on another note, why would a company decide to pay for another connection in another country, presumable going through a shell company they had to create to disassociate the connection from them, instead of simply locking the user's internet access down and create a termination policy for those insistent on getting around it?

    80. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That would look pretty weird in the squid (or similar) logs of the machine that your firewall rules are forcing all that port 80 or proxy traffic through. Of course if nobody ever looks at the logs or never has something like swatch notify for things that don't match the usual patterns nobody would ever know.
      You'd probably have to have your endpoint for the VPN resolve in DNS to avoid being noticed, and even then a lot of proxy monitoring software would list it as one of the most popular sites unless it was used sparingly.

    81. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      1996 called, but Australia's Telstra (unholy spawn of government incompetence and corporate greed) have been going backwards since then and are not interested. Thanks to their almost complete monopoly I'm getting 6M/6M for over $1000 per month at work and a higher download speed at home via ADSL (less of a monopoly) for $50. That's a hell of a lot more to pay for an upchannel that wouldn't be considered anything special in most places.
      BTW, that ridiculous price is from one of Telstra's few competitors - Telstra wanted an extra $600 per month and a traffic cap.

    82. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      But on another note, why would a company decide to pay for another connection in another country, presumable going through a shell company they had to create to disassociate the connection from them, instead of simply locking the user's internet access down and create a termination policy for those insistent on getting around it?

      It seems like cheap insurance to me. The cost of the connection is of no significance in the operation of a business, and in many situations it may have no cost at all: If you have sites in different countries and one has more rational laws than the other, the cost of routing traffic from one to the other is trivial. And the alternative of becoming the copyright police is fraught with danger and expense: You have to interfere with the productivity of your workers, install and maintain expensive filtering solutions, and if you make a mistake then you're in trouble.

      Your premise seems to be that routing around a deranged legal system would somehow be shameful or immoral. But think about it this way: Suppose you route all your traffic through another country, but none of that traffic is actually illegal in your home country. Any problems for your morals or reputation? I sure don't see any. So if you get into trouble it's only when you would have otherwise anyway -- someone has to have pirated something at your site and gotten caught. At that point, I certainly wouldn't mind having the argument available that the internet connection is at the sister company's site in the more rational country.

      Obviously you probably wouldn't want to send a letter to the head of the *AAs asking what they think about it, but that's only because they have a stick so far up their ass that it's impacting their brain stem. These are the people who go after you for playing a radio too loud without an ASCAP license. If a disgruntled employee wants to cause them to harass you, they can do it regardless.

    83. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I tried thinking of one, but ended up typing "non-totalitarian country" in hope of somebody else naming one.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    84. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you're on a VPN then the data still ends up being stored on your computer, so if someone is downloading a torrent onto a business machine, the business could still end up in trouble. Your home connection is just another hop on the data's journey, the same as any other switch that it passes through on its way to you. Both the home connection and business connection would be involved in the download, though since the traffic between your house and work is encrypted, then a naive observer might assume that the home connection is the end point.

      If an employye downloaded something at home then put it on a disc and copied it onto his work computer, would the business be liable if it infringed copyright?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    85. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Probably. Considering it's the CEO that's liable if anyone is found to be using pirated software, I don't see how it would be different for any other type of copyright violations. How the content got to be there shouldn't matter, only the fact that it's there.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    86. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheating?

    87. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by vipw · · Score: 1

      milli per bit seconds.

    88. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, im well aware of the difference between commercial and residential connections. I was merely pointing out that business class connections are still being offered in pathetic trickles of bandwidth. IM now hated at his office because he didnt want to pay to upgrade his connection so I had to lock down all the user workstations.. " "NO Ms. So-Cal receptionist, you cannot stream Pandora all day while video skype'ing with your boyfriend and surfing youtube."

      --
      Good-bye
    89. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Well, business class connections are being offered in guaranteed speeds that happen to be not that fast. But your speedy line could potentially be slowed down to even slower than that pathetic trickle because you have no guaranteed minimum bandwidth.

      That said we have some outrageously fat pipes where I work and I still lock down workstations so users can't stream Pandora, Skype, and surf YouTube all day long. That policy has zip to do with bandwidth. If employees here are not interested in being productive while at work, we are not really interested in paying them.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    90. Re:and it's thwarted with...... by laptop006 · · Score: 1

      No you don't. (Network engineer working for a major global carrier in Australia)

      *US* carriers will sell you T1/T3 lines, but they're not to the local standards. Australian standard lines are E1/E3 (Euro) or more commonly E1 PRI's (AKA Telstra Onramp).

      Of course none of that matters for data as almost everyone just uses Gig-E (or 10ge) over single mode fibre these days, although some carriers still hold a torch for SDH/SONET.

      --
      /* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
  2. Security cameras by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    You don't even have to plug them in - just point them at each desk and make sure they have a little blinking red LED. Remind everyone in cubicleland to welcome their security-cam-wielding pointy-haired overlords.

    1. Re:Security cameras by Jeng · · Score: 0

      Too expensive to monitor and it is kinda hard to tell what website someone is on via a camera that is looking over their shoulder.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Security cameras by janeuner · · Score: 1

      == Too expensive to monitor and it is kinda hard to tell what website someone is on via a camera that is looking over their shoulder. ==

      Especially when they aren't plugged in. Reading is hard.

      Also: http://www.amazon.com/SE-Dummy-Security-Camera-Flashing/dp/B000XBMP5E

    3. Re:Security cameras by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the "you don't even have to plug them in" part.

      Combine that with simple logging thru a proxy server and you're done, because once people think a camera is keeping an eye on them all the time, they tend to not surf pr0n sites from work as much, so you have far fewer log files to go through in the end if there IS a problem.

    4. Re:Security cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooooosh!

    5. Re:Security cameras by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Security Theater is not effective.

      Example, I used to work in shipping at Dell, we had to walk though metal detectors to leave work everyday. We were also required to wear steel toe shoes, therefor the metal detectors always went off. People were stealing shit right and left because they knew that security was ineffective.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    6. Re:Security cameras by RMingin · · Score: 1

      Nobody said to watch them.

      "Fear will keep the local systems in line..." - Tarkin

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    7. Re:Security cameras by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Years ago I worked for an employment center that had a public-use phone for job hunting and the like. Some people would abuse it to phone the girlfriends, make drug deals and so on. The price of a new phone system that could be monitored was looked at it, and while not steep, there were some privacy concern. Finally, someone had the bright idea and put a sign over the phone "All Phone Calls Are Monitored And Recorded", and almost overnight the problem all but disappeared.

      It's the Big Brother theory of surveillance. Your surveillance apparatus doesn't have to be perfect or even near-perfect. All that matters is that everyone thinks your surveillance is near-perfect.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Security cameras by bmearns · · Score: 1

      That's just a good example of a poor policy. People can know that some of the camera's are fake as long as they know that some are real, and they don't know which ones (it could even change occasionally). That would probably be fairly effective at suppressing the specified habits.

      However, the side effects of working in an environment like that may be a real concern. Nobody wants work under oppressive conditions, and for most people, constant surveillance monitoring is oppressive. You may well loose some employees from it, and those that stay for have the morale of an inmate.

      --
      Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    9. Re:Security cameras by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Well in this case it is because people can directly witness people beeping and being ignored on a daily basis. If they know that beeps from the detectors are ignored then they won't be afraid of making it beep. If you made a fake metal detector and made up a BS story about it being "calibrated to ignore the type of steel in steel toed boots", odds are it would work better. Security theiter is actually as effective as real security, sometimes more effective (if the user can see how it works, they can learn to get around it and be 99% sure that they won't be caught, if they are told it's a phantom method they can't understand, they will think "It's probably fake, but even a 10% chance of getting caught isn't worth it". The issue isn't that security is just a theiter, the issue is that in your case, they pretty much tell everyone it is a theiter.

    10. Re:Security cameras by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      That's why you put the camera ON their shoulder.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    11. Re:Security cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to workplace laws, that may be illegal - certainly in Portugal, may be in NZ too.

    12. Re:Security cameras by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      An *unplugged* camera can't be illegal, since it's not actually watching anything, now is it?

    13. Re:Security cameras by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Pointing an unloaded gun at someone is still illegal, and furthermore, as soon as you say "it's okay, it's not loaded", it will no longer have the desired effect.

    14. Re:Security cameras by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Analogies are meant to be used in situations where the subject matter is unfamiliar to the listener. They are not a logical construct where some concept that is applicable to object A magically becomes applicable to object B.

      In other words... your point?

    15. Re:Security cameras by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      My point was that perceived intent is what matters. Point a camera at someone and they'll react as if it's plugged in and recording. If that's illegal, expect to answer for it. And if your defense is "but it's not plugged in", expect them to stop acting like it is. And if the whole point was them acting like it's plugged in, you've just shot yourself in the foot, so to speak.

      Clear now?

    16. Re:Security cameras by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your method would be identified as theater on the first day.

      Someone would just 'forget' a piece of personal electronics (I'd guess cell phone) and walk through. Before the day was out someone would have rolled through with their mountain bike.

      The theater isn't to catch or deter anyone. It's there so the chumps (management) can think they are doing something. Same as in the airports, only they take us all for chumps.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Security cameras by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even have to appear near perfect, just plausible enough and with a reasonable estimated chance of detection (even 10% would scare off most people).

    18. Re:Security cameras by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      If that's illegal, expect to answer for it.

      Fortunately, this is where your argument falls apart. Threatening someone with a fake gun is illegal. Putting up a fake camera is not.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    19. Re:Security cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point was that pointing a real camera at someone IS, and pointing a camera at someone will do you no good if they know it's not real.

  3. Ouch man, just ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, condolences on those new laws.

    I can’t recommend any software. I will say this kind of stuff sounds like the kind of stuff you pay through the nose for. I doubt any open source projects would form up to build such a tool (but always possible.. some people are unusual).

    My first thought when putting myself in the shoes you describe, would be to transfer the liability. I guess it depends on how much money we are talking about when a copyright violation occurs. If you get sued, can you then sue the employee who did the infringing to re-coup your loses? Can you put this in a contract? If so this is the approach I would take... and just do enough monitoring to link violation to violator.

    Disclaimer: I’m a programmer, not a business manager and certainly not a lawyer.

    1. Re:Ouch man, just ouch by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      As other people have mentioned, Squid in Transparent Proxy mode, and a IPTables forwarding of all port 80 traffic to the Squid box will allow you to both speed up access, and optionally block/monitor the sites people are going to (and/or block ads, replace images, all that kind of fun stuff). Some simple reporting with Regular Expressions and perl/php/lua/python/[insert your chosen web development language here] will enable you to see who is accessing what, and how often.

    2. Re:Ouch man, just ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you have exactly the answer. One way to implement is to remove access to the internet through your proxy for everyone. You can do this in various ways with different proxy server software. Ours is setup to work on group membership, so we'd remove everyone from the group. Have the users go to a URL that has them electronically sign a document (differing legality in different jurisdictions; may have to have a print copy sent in depending on location) that amends their employment agreement to transfer this liability and let's them know what infringement is, etc. Once they file the requisite electronic or paper document they are added back to the group. A real pain in the rear, but it seems like that's what your new laws set all the companies there up for. Certainly much cheaper to do than logging their site visits and auditing them weekly, monthly, etc.

    3. Re:Ouch man, just ouch by Captain_Loser · · Score: 2

      Squid setup as a transparent proxy is the way to go (squid-cache.org). It also has lots of good log parsing addons like SARG (sarg.sourceforge.net/sarg.php) that can give you detailed usage statistics. For non-http usage information you can add SNORT (snort.org) to the mix with a log parsing addon like ACID (www.andrew.cmu.edu/~rdanyliw/snort/snortacid.html).

      --
      -=You might be a geek if your computer is worth more than your car=-
  4. squid by grub · · Score: 1


    Use squid and a squid log analyzer.

    Since when did Ask Slashdot become a Google proxy? Sheesh.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:squid by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Since we started allowing bootloaders to post, duh.

    2. Re:squid by Kildjean · · Score: 1

      Since the management is gone... =(

      --
      Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
    3. Re:squid by nharmon · · Score: 1

      I agree: Squid + SARG is the best free solution.

    4. Re:squid by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Back many years ago when I had concerns like this, I used the ACID network monitor that allows for complete tracking of all activity. It doesn't do any blocking but it does make report generation of all network activity very simple. However, it sounds like the solution to go for is something like Squid doing transparent proxying with content filtering. Also, block any ports in AND out that arent used for HTTP (80 and 443) to completely nix the chance of P2P working in any reasonable way. But alas, if the submitter were after a good filter why should they care what the users are doing; they surely aren't doing it on any illicit sites (assuming the filtering rules are effective?)

      Seems like this should be two questions: one is what free/open ruleset can be trusted (as there are many good free tools at hand to enforce the rules) and two what additional inspection should take place to all content that might not be blocked, to find employees that spend too much time doing stuff on the "edge" of permissibility?

    5. Re:squid by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You could still do encrypted P2P over 443, couldn't you?

    6. Re:squid by leamanc · · Score: 1

      I thought most P2P software these days will latch on to port 80 or 443 if everything else is blocked...or 25, 110, 465, 587, 993, or other ports you are likely to have open even if you have "everything" blocked. Traffic on port 80 doesn't have to be HTTP, after all; that's just the "standard" protocol for that port.

      --
      :q!
    7. Re:squid by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      It does if there is an invisible proxy on port 80 that treats all traffic like HTTP... If it's not, it simply won't get through the proxy. Port 443 introduces a bit of a challenge since the invisible proxy isn't allowed to know whats in those SSL/TLS encrypted packets, it just knows that they should be encyrpted.

  5. Trojan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    title says it all

  6. Firewall by Krneki · · Score: 1

    Block everything except port 80 and 443.

    If anyone needs any other port, demand a written request.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Firewall by Anrego · · Score: 1

      I agree that would block most possibilities for infringement...

      would just note that you do still have rapidshare and friends

    2. Re:Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With port 80 and 443 all the filelockers are still excessable, brilliant.

    3. Re:Firewall by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't stop them from torrenting, though.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Firewall by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      I, too, live in NZ. When the new law was being put in place earlier this year, I read the bill itself, watched much of the televised debate, and have read numerous commentaries since -- and I still do not quite know what the proscribed behavior is. It is not spelled out in the bill, but every discussion seems to focus on torrent. The parliamentarians were apparently briefed on torrenting, and little or nothing else. It would seem that downloading copyrighted material via html or ftp is perhaps OK. But we know that torrent is used to distribute many files that are not violating copyright by doing so. Will we get hit for that?

      And the law as written does not impose many requirements on the "copyright owner" to prove they legally are entitled to redress.

    5. Re:Firewall by Krneki · · Score: 1

      How can you use torrent if only port 80/443 are open?

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  7. Proxy by griessh · · Score: 1

    I would install a proxy server. I used for many years wingate from QBIK (an austarlian company) and was very happy with the options and logging they offered: http://www.wingate.com/qbik/index.php

  8. Alternative by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone who requires internet access gets a wireless broadband card in their name that they can expense. Now they are the owner of the connection and you are off the hook.
    IANAL especially not in New Zealand

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Alternative by Albanach · · Score: 0

      And a lawyer is exactly who OP needs to talk to.

      You need legal advice on what information you should track and collect if any. If you have logs that show infringement but you haven't taken action - because you missed it in amongst hundreds of thousands of other log lines - will your firm have increased liability?

      You need legal advice before you can form a requirements specification. Then you can look for software, free or commercial, that meets those requirements.

    2. Re:Alternative by Phics · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great low-cost solution....

      --
      There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
    3. Re:Alternative by bmearns · · Score: 1

      IANAL especially not in New Zealand

      Are you sort of a lawyer else where?

      --
      Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    4. Re:Alternative by ShadyG · · Score: 1

      No, but especially not in New Zealand.

    5. Re:Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobile data is like $10 per MB...

    6. Re:Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except 3G data prices are extortionate in NZ compared to you lucky Americans.

  9. accumulate the data usage by drolli · · Score: 2

    just talk to the top ten users, if they have no explicit reason for consuming so much data. If they cant explain it, search their computer, if they have done something wrong fire them and make sure everybody in the office knows why.

    1. Re:accumulate the data usage by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      just talk to the top ten users, if they have no explicit reason for consuming so much data. If they cant explain it, search their computer, if they have done something wrong fire them and make sure everybody in the office knows why.

      This is novel and effective. Find the total use, divide by the number of users, and then seriously question anyone who uses more than 2 or 3 times the average. Unless *everyone* is torrenting, of course.

    2. Re:accumulate the data usage by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If that practice became common, I could see P2P client plugins sending garbage data with a spoofed IP/MAC to raise everyone else's average.

    3. Re:accumulate the data usage by drolli · · Score: 1

      The university computing center where i studied did that a long time ago. I found it overall quite non-intrusive. I was an admin of a smaller group there and received the complaints from the central if something weird was going on. I preferred this much over some cease-and-desist clauses because it made sure i could collaborate with them wholeheartedly instead of referring them to go via the administration to reach me in the official way.

      If they sent me an email telling that one computer transferred 500GB in one month (that was in 2004/2005) i would just call them to figure out who is the culprit and what happened (and fry his balls). Instead when they forwarded me an email from some copyright troll claiming something then all i would say is: "i verified that this service is not active right now on this machine. For further legal steps call the dean of the faculty"

    4. Re:accumulate the data usage by drolli · · Score: 2

      That exactly is the reason why you should never give hacking ideas to idiots. Would you really raise the bar from doing something for which you just can be fired to something which implies at least 2-3 crimes (circumventing security measures, sabotaging, wrongly planting evidence suggesting that others are involved in criminal acts) and at least 3 possibilities for civil lawsuits (for trouble finding, possibly for compensating you co-workers, a contractual punishment, and abuse of your working time)? And this just for torrenting something?

      Then you are an idiot. Believe me. Do this and you will most likely get caught and get a much harsher punishment.

      If you don't believe me, then google for: "Displaying MAC Addresses Detected by a Switch" procurve

      If you don't believe that you admin will be a little on red alert after seeing the highly erratic network behaviour and go to such kind of low-level diagnosis, well, thats your choice.

    5. Re:accumulate the data usage by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Most of the smart switches I know of can be configured to shut down a port reporting more MACs than authorized on a particular wire. You know, so that (A) the chucklehead at the end of the wire isn't exchanging equipment on you, like plugging his home laptop into your corporate net, or (B) the chucklehead at the end of the wire isn't fanning his port out without authorization by plugging it into his own little "workgroup" switch.

      As to source IPs... routers should do the same, really. If it's office equipment, it shouldn't be moving around (changing switch ports) or changing IP addresses (other than the centrally-issued DHCP one) at all.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:accumulate the data usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see it now... row upon row of cubicle drones.... all shouting "I'm torrenting Spartacus!"

    7. Re:accumulate the data usage by drolli · · Score: 1

      Source IPs are even worse. A simple dump on the monitor port using wireshark will reveal that there are two ip using different mac and windows machines will display a nice warning message that there is another machine claiming their IP.

    8. Re:accumulate the data usage by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I never said I would. Torrenting at work seems stupid to me even without such security measures.

      I said I could see someone do it. Whether they'd get caught is a different issue.

    9. Re:accumulate the data usage by drolli · · Score: 1

      Well in this case, ok.

      They need to be fired for three reasons then:

      1) torrenting
      2) hacking
      3) being idiots.

      an easy way to select them.

    10. Re:accumulate the data usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posting AC out of embarrassment. At my last job, I had a torrent client open most of the time, for downloading almost exclusively old, out of print, or foreign music from a very small, private tracker. No movies, no porn, no software. Strictly music, and pretty niche music at that. We shared a T1 line with one other business who didn't need it, so I tended to get the stuff I downloaded damn quick. My boss--the owner of the company--didn't understand how torrents worked, but knew that illegal downloading existed.

      He got an email from our ISP that was essentially a "we know someone in your unit has been torrenting something, knock it off or we'll report you." but didn't understand the language of the email, so he asked me. i explained that i had been sharing music with friends, and that it was likely my sharing that caught their eye. He told me to knock it off, and I did immediately. Never loaded the client again.

      The next day, I got a little spooked and reread the email. Turns out it was someone ELSE in the office downloading a movie that wasn't me at all. I never did learn who it was.

    11. Re:accumulate the data usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firing someone in New Zealand is not as simple as it is in the USA :P

    12. Re:accumulate the data usage by jon3k · · Score: 1

      That's what port security is for.

  10. Wrong approach by morcego · · Score: 2

    Business shouldn't do blacklisting. They should do whitelisting (everything is forbidden, you only allow specifics).

    That is the only way to have a somewhat working control system (and even that is not perfect).

    Block everything. Allow what needs to be allowed.

    --
    morcego
    1. Re:Wrong approach by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>Block everything. Allow what needs to be allowed.

      And then you'll have to hire 10 more IT guys just to deal with all the legitimate requests for unblocking that will come pouring in.

      I used to work at a place like that. It eventually was just easier for them to give me the password to unblock sites myself, rather than pester them about it.

    2. Re:Wrong approach by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what my employer has done. Sites are categorized and when we attempt to visit a blocked site, we get a page with details of why the site isn't accessible and a link is included to make a request to change access. For some categories, we also get a link to override the block (have to login with our VPN IDs) or we get a link that basically says we acknowledge that we're visiting a site where caution needs to be used. I'm not sure what software is being used, but seems a reasonable approach for an employer to take to control bandwidth usage and site visits for non-business purposes.

    3. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen systems where they do this, and then have a system in place where anyone can bypass it by specifying their username/password (except for explicit blocks).

      This way work doesn't get held up because some suppliers manual is not on the list.. or some programming reference site.. or whatever ... but there is still a record linking employee to site (with a quick little rational) that assumably gets reviewed at some point (or maybe is just held incase shit hits the fan).

    4. Re:Wrong approach by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      No, you have to assume your employees are mostly professional and use the corporate web access to support their job. Only block and restrict when employees visit sites they shouldn't. Every employee shouldn't have to request each and every site they visit just because a couple of employees are too cheap or lazy to download from their home connection.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:Wrong approach by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      This is another example of the Owner mentality where they thing they own everything, everyone, that their workers don't need or deserve any privacy, because they Own it all even them. The problem is that now Copyright owners have paid for friends in Governments and have them getting everyone else to collect their copyright tax just like they get individuals and companies to collect government and sales tax. I think we are going in the wrong direction. Towards micro charges for breathing and viewing and eating ....

      When does it stop, when will we see that this nanny state even in business is not cost effective and certainly not advisible.

    6. Re:Wrong approach by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I really hate this assumption that everything should be allowed for convenience. There is no reason to take the 'lets be open and free until a problem arises approach'. 95% of office workers DO NOT NEED FULL UNRESTRICTED INTERNET AT THEIR DESK. Office computers are tools and until you demonstrate a viable need for particular sites for your WORK, i see no need to allow you to see ANYTHING on the internet. That is not what the corporate IT structure is for, I dont get paid to let you play Facebook games.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Wrong approach by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a Software Engineer. A peripheral part of my job involves dealing with Oracle. If I run in to a problem, I google the error message (or google what I am trying to do). I typically find the answer on some random blog or forum (no, the answer isn't always on ask tom). Are you going to claim those sites aren't "required" and therefore I don't need access to them? Otherwise, your whitelist is going to be pretty long...

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    8. Re:Wrong approach by Kidbro · · Score: 1

      It's nice that you've found a job where you never have to learn anything new, or have to get up to date information about anything. For the rest of us, please let us use the Internet so we can do our god damned job.
      Every single place where I've been consulting that has had similar silly policies in place, I've had bypass them somehow. It's never possible to tell from where I need to get information (google links to some obscure forum discussing the particular error I have in whatever library).
      Let me guess, you also think that I shouldn't be allowed onto IRC to discuss my problems with experts in the field I happen to be working in at the moment?

    9. Re:Wrong approach by AndyJ · · Score: 2

      >>It eventually was just easier for them to give me the password to unblock sites myself, rather than pester them about it.

      I guess that could be a starting point for the problem?

      Everyone gets a user/pass, they add their own sites.

      As long as it's all logged (IE, you don't remove example.com 10 minutes after using it) that would provide a solution.

      --
      Never be afraid to ask. Wisdom must be gathered before it can be given.
    10. Re:Wrong approach by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I can't believe he is seriously asking this on Slashdot? I got a better suggestion - sabotage whatever employee tracking system you already have, quit and the join other Free Men in protest of NZ government's draconian policies.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    11. Re:Wrong approach by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      You'd think so, but in my experience, that hasn't been the case. The company that I work for basically uses a "block everything and open up what is needed" policy, and our IT department consists of five people. One works exclusively on our billing software. Two are desktop support, and two of us are network admins. These questions pretty much exclusively come to me, and it's not overwhelming -- not even close. Granted, it's a fairly small company -- just a couple hundred employees -- but still, the unblocking requests are maybe one or two a month once you've tweaked the filters for the first couple of weeks.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    12. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should devote your energies to making sure your employees WANT to be there, instead of treating them all like criminal children?

    13. Re:Wrong approach by rgviza · · Score: 1

      bullshit. a properly implemented white list solution, with good tools takes one click to allow a new item from the admin after they preview it. The web request generates an email, admin clicks it, opens preview and clicks allow or deny. Deny adds it to a blacklist so the admins never get bothered again from that domain. There's a management page to search, add or delete stuff manually to whitelist and blacklist

      A well engineered solution will also allow every domain referenced in the request except the blacklisted ones (like doubleclick.net) you can even design your solution to have discrete whitelists assigned to users to limit damage if their supervisor does something stupid.

      I know, I wrote one.

      It's easier to manage this than to enumerate badness, reinstall comprimised os installs, remove spyware, deal with viruses, patching, blah blah blah, and replace employees that get fired because they got caught p2ping and prosecuted.

      Laziness isn't an excuse and you can delegate the approval emails to the user's managers. No extra it guys needed. Automation and delegation for the win.

      I'm really tired of hearing the "too much work" excuse. It's a cop-out.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    14. Re:Wrong approach by rgviza · · Score: 1

      mod up. morcego is 100% correct without reservation.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    15. Re:Wrong approach by pbhj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>Block everything. Allow what needs to be allowed.
      >And then you'll have to hire 10 more IT guys just to deal with all the legitimate requests

      You could have a click through that puts a persons name to the unblocking - so instead of hiring anyone you have the user self-certify that the page is work related and doesn't compromise any work usage policies. Internally publish the list of domains and who certified them.

    16. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds good. Block everything (accept for some really mainstream sites like top 1000). Then, just let every employee unblock the sites they need, but you will have a log of who unblocked it. Then if there are problems, you know who to ask/discipline/fire as the case may be. That might the easiest solution for small to medium biz. Big corporates have this figured out already.

    17. Re:Wrong approach by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The issues involved with white listing are as follows;
      1. Someone has to be available to do it. The admin, or supervisor, has to be at his desk to click OK. What if he is in a meeting, at lunch, on the phone or away from his desk for some reason? The request does not get fulfilled and the employee has to wait.
      2. Even if the tech is available he has to switch tasks, check the site out and act on the request. That takes time and is disruptive to normal work flow.
      3. Creates an environment of mistrust. If you can not trust your employees to do the right thing, particularly in the tech industry, you shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

      If your anti-virus software is so bad that you have to fix computers very often then the problem is with IT and not the users.

    18. Re:Wrong approach by morcego · · Score: 1

      Creates an environment of mistrust. If you can not trust your employees to do the right thing, particularly in the tech industry, you shouldn't have hired them in the first place

      That is the lamest excuse I ever heard:

      - Do you trust known websites ?
      - Do you trust the technical knowledge of all your users to identify bad websites ?
      - Do you trust your prevention system (antivirus etc) to block 100% of the malware ?

      --
      morcego
    19. Re:Wrong approach by cyberstealth1024 · · Score: 1

      I'm also a software engineer. I couldn't agree more. mod parent up

    20. Re:Wrong approach by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you missed the point. My comment was not about malicious sites it was about the perception that employees waste time surfing the web when they should be working. That is where the trust comes in. If the employee is not getting the work done then fire him. It doesn't matter if he is using his desktop or his smartphone to shirk work then that is the problem. Putting up gates in front of honest employees make them feel like criminals. Good employees do not stay at companies where that is the atmosphere very long.

      BTW, even known sites have been compromised so the whitelist is not bullet proof.

    21. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: You're a programmer, not an engineer. That title is reserved for those who have been formally educated in a specific engineering discipline like electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc. Computer Science would be the closest thing to engineering.

      Otherwise a very insightful and well-formed post. Thank you.

    22. Re:Wrong approach by downhole · · Score: 1

      Could only work if their employees are glorified button-pushers. If anyone at the company is doing anything at all interesting or innovative, then they're going to be doing lots of research about it, which will generate traffic to thousands of random websites, and handling whitelist requests for all of them will be a huge drain on everybody's productivity.

      There's also the personal websurfing aspect. Not gonna lie, I do plenty of that too. Do you really think that's wrong? I say that if your employees are doing anything creative as part of their job, like maybe writing code or designing application architectures, then they're going to need some slack time periodically.

      The bottom line is that if you treat your employees like moron button-pushers who must be monitored every second, then that's the kind of work you're going to get out of them, and good luck competing like that in today's business environment. If you hire smart, effective people and trust them, then they'll create amazing things for you, which is better for the bottom line and your employees' sanity.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    23. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, wonderful. I used to work in a call centre for an ISP with an urban and a rural brand. We had such a whitelist. We could see the page of the urban brand, which was helpful for pointing customers around "go to this page, see in the top left corner next to -foo-? there's the thing you're looking for". We didn't have access to the rural brand, which was a pain in the arse.

      Sent an email to management: "Unblock our own product to help us serve the customers" Reply: No. We haven't had this request from IT.
      Sent an email to IT: "Unblock our own product to help us serve the customers" Reply: No. We haven't had this request from management.

      You know what? Fuck whitelists.

    24. Re:Wrong approach by godglike · · Score: 1

      I'm also a software engineer. I couldn't agree more. mod parent up

    25. Re:Wrong approach by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Right, so when I'm working late and I'm trying to pull up some API documentation and it turns out it's blocked, and the sysadmins have all gone home for the night, what then? I'm stuck. (Assuming I don't just bypass the whitelist entirely by ssh tunneling my connections through my home linux box.) Unless you'd like for me to call up the guy at home? Oh, but that sort of explodes your "it's not too much work" notion.

      Whitelisting is simply not conducive to a good work environment.

    26. Re:Wrong approach by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Well in my job I'm constantly using the internet as an information resource so I can do my job better. That means visiting on average a dozen or so different web sites per day for product literature, chip specifications, research papers, etc. If I had to ask permission for every site I wanted to look at I would never get anything done.

      You do realize the internet is more than just for games and porn don't you? It is primarily an information repository, and people should be allowed to use it as such. You're obviously in IT, so I'm going to have to break it to you gently that you are in a SERVICE job for OTHER WORKERS. You are not in a police state deciding what other need or do not need for their job. If you don't like that then I'd suggest you are in the wrong job.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    27. Re:Wrong approach by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      My JOB is to provide network infrastructure as charged by the company. That includes making sure that the people that need resources acquire them through approved methods. This can and does include telling people no they cannot have unrestricted access to whatever they want through whatever method they deem is best. If you wish to work on THE COMPANY'S network, you will abide by the terms MANAGEMENT and IT have agreed to for service. Please dont try to tell me what my job is, I have 6 managers that do that already.

      It breaks down to this, if you can prove that you need this type of access to function in your job, IT will attempt to provide you with a solution in the best way they can while keeping our policies in place. If you ask us to straight up break or ignore policy, you are going to be met with fierce resistance. Its not because we want to say no, its because most users have WHOLLY UNREASONABLE expectations of what they should be allowed to do on company property. When it comes to the network, it is ABSOLUTELY A POLICE STATE. If you think otherwise you have no idea what IT does.

      --
      Good-bye
    28. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whitetrash is a great way to do whitelisting like this. It's designed as an anti-malware measure, but as it captures who requested/allowed the site it does the above.
      http://whitetrash.sourceforge.net

    29. Re:Wrong approach by mikechant · · Score: 1

      Business shouldn't do blacklisting. They should do whitelisting

      We had such a system back in about 1997, when the web was quite young and small. It lasted about a couple of years until the point where the number of entirely legitimate work-related websites we needed to access made it totally impractical to maintain. Now we have a 'good enough' blacklisting system.
       

    30. Re:Wrong approach by Zilog · · Score: 1

      So the whole INTERNET is in your corporate perimeter ?

      I really hate this assumption that INTERNET could be a corporate controled area.

      Even a simple monitored HTTP access is yet a FULL UNRESTRICTED INTERNET, because YOU HAVE NO CONTROL on any external HTTP end point.

      If you really need to RESTRICT INTERNET, unplug the cables. No other ways.

    31. Re:Wrong approach by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      And my job as an Engineer is to do engineering. That means research and getting the latest information I need. If you really want to sit there and approve a new website every 10 minutes then go ahead. If you think that is making your company secure, then you're an idiot.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    32. Re:Wrong approach by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Did someone forget their meds today?

      --
      Good-bye
  11. Rethink by imemyself · · Score: 1

    You should probably worry more about people using P2P protocols than just browsing the web. A web proxy is probably not the best tool to reduce your business's risk in that situation. I would wager that there is a substantially higher risk of being "caught" using P2P software to share copyrighted content, than browsing websites that have content for download.

    Regardless, if there is a substantial financial risk to the business from copyright violations, it should be easy to justify spending money on something. Barracuda has a decent web filter - but again, they may not be what you need.

    --
    Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
  12. zScaler by CrudPuppy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check out the zScaler proxy. Lots of good benefits, including what you need. I use it for all my employees and love it, especially the reporting and fine-grained control.

    --
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
    1. Re:zScaler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded on Zscaler. They have an inexpensive per user license with multiple tiers of service and the setup is anywhere from very simple (forward port 80/443 etc) to very specific (GRE tunnels with user level mapping through AD or LDAP).
        The service can also include much more than simple blocking/tracking. Check it out.

  13. Car Analogy by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    So in New Zealand if somebody steals my car and uses it to rob a bank I will be arrested for robbing a bank?

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Car Analogy by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Only if you are the driver.

      Or a Maori, or an ab.

    2. Re:Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the locals in NZ were the kiwis?

  14. Change the employee agreement by White+Flame · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the employer also becomes a private ISP, and every employee is charged 1NZD per month for internet access at their workstation (taken straight from the paycheck, after everybody gets a 12NZD/year raise), then they own and are liable for the internet connection at their desk, not the company.

    1. Re:Change the employee agreement by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am glad that you are a practicing lawyer in New Zealand and have educated us on this wonderful workaround. Could you please give us the contact information for your legal practice just in case someone in law enforcement questions the validity of your fine resolution to this problem? Because clearly your method trumps the employer-employee agency laws.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Change the employee agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you link to the laws that you say this method trumps?

      I'm glad you are also a practicing lawyer in New Zealand.

    3. Re:Change the employee agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god is that a retarded idea.

    4. Re:Change the employee agreement by sitharus · · Score: 2

      Alas, the law as it stands requires that if internet access is merely an "incidental feature of its main business activities" the company does not qualify as an "IP Address Provider", and thus the company is still liable, thought of that one a while back. Also if you don't issue public IP addresses you're not an IPAP (roll on ipv6!)

      At least my crafty lawyers haven't found a way through it yet. Maybe soon.

      --
      --sitharus
    5. Re:Change the employee agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it becomes a case of the employees owning the connection and the business having no say in how it is used or what sites are available to them. This is no answer to the problem at all as all the major time sinks, like FB and Twitter, will become acceptable rights for each employee there with the company not able to have any say in the matter as THEY DO NOT OWN THE CONNECTION - THE STAFF DO. That's right, as owners of the connection the employees would have the power over the corporate/business internet connection not management. Which company would live with that and who would sit still for being told what to do with what they legally own (e.g. the corporate internet connection)? Would you take your manager telling you that you couldn't drive your car on Tuesdays or make any calls to friends/family ever on the mobile phone you pay for due to the corporate policy? I don't think so. Other than that, would YOU pay for the connection for your place of work without complaint, $1 or not, especially when the company makes so much more money than you do? Try again without the short-sightedness and simplicity.

    6. Re:Change the employee agreement by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new Antipodean barrister overlords!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Change the employee agreement by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Well if we can't prove MyLongNickName is wrong, then clearly the original poster is correct, and it's valid legal advice! Your logic is amazing! Thanks!

    8. Re:Change the employee agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANL, but WhiteFlame hasn't actually solved any problem. The problem has been over-complicated though.

      The reason that ISPs get some sort of safe harbour is that they're being required to turn over customer records for "who" was at that IP address at some time. If a business can also do the same then they are pretty-much off the hook. If an ISP cannot turn over access records when asked by the law then there's a set of other problems that they face. The company has the same problem. It needs to be able to turn over access records identifying certain users to get the safe harbour. Being a private carrier is doesn't negate that fact, and is just a spurious step. It doesn't seem it would provide any extra protection to the business that being able to say "he did it" doesn't.

      Your employee agreement or a recent addendum to it (probably) says that you will only use the Internet for business use, and that all unlawful activity is prohibited. The company has covered its ass for anything you do that's unlawful and not business related, so long as they can show that you did it.

    9. Re:Change the employee agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should keep in mind that the changes to the NZ law affect only downloading via P2P file sharing. It does not apply to files downloaded from web sites or other protocols. To do so would require actual interception of traffic.

      In NZ it would be illegal for a rights holder to intercept traffic to monitor for copyright violations without an interception warrant. Monitoring P2P traffic does not require "wiretapping" or interception of net traffic so is legal.

  15. custom hosts + pfsense or ipcop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1st: in order to reduce the size of your reports (and also security risks), implement MVPS's custom hosts file (winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm)
    2nd: use IPCop or pfSense, as they work OK and do the trick

  16. VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell all of your users to use a VPN and don't be party to stupid laws pushed on your country by Hollywood.

  17. ntop by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ntop (http://www.ntop.org) should be able to do more or less what you want, but you might have to tweak a few things. However, it would also help you get a better handle on all your network usage in general, so I'd look into it anyway if I were in your situation.

    1. Re:ntop by rveldpau · · Score: 1

      I'm replying to this in hopes to get it to stand out more. The real solutions here aren't easy to find.

    2. Re:ntop by fmwap · · Score: 1

      In my experience, ntop is only useful for diagnosing problems, as you cannot leave it running for too long without it killing your CPU.

      ntop brought our 4 core intel machine to a standstill after a few days, it's ment for quick diagnosis but not long term monitoring.

      On a side note - I like trafshow much better than ntop, I wish they would have continued developing trafshow instead of converting it into the web-based, memory sucking nightmare that is ntop.

      Just MHO. Have you had success running ntop for longer than a few days?

    3. Re:ntop by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was the next-hop route of a darknet collector looking for traffic that shouldn't be. I've also used it for netflow analysis. It could use some improvements, but depending on what you need and what you have available, your mileage will vary.

    4. Re:ntop by mpe · · Score: 1

      ntop (http://www.ntop.org) should be able to do more or less what you want, but you might have to tweak a few things.

      It dosn't look like this will do anything the original poster was actually asking about.

    5. Re:ntop by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      It will let him see where traffic is going, what protocol it is using, etc. You can then use the data to make policy decisions and take action. Frankly, I don't think that he's going to be able to find free/floss product that does this, because this isn't the sort of thing that floss people want to volunteer to do, is it? That means, he's either going to have to pay to realize that it's not so much a technical problem as it is a management issue and that gathering intelligence about network usage will not only allow him to get a better handle on what steps he can take, but also provide the data to management that they need to take appropriate action on their end.

  18. Wrong business plan by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should be asking about low cost politicians.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Wrong business plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      upvote

    2. Re:Wrong business plan by discord5 · · Score: 1

      You should be asking about low cost politicians.

      Or a low cost solution for sending politicians on a one way trip to the sun.

  19. Cephalopod by mojatt · · Score: 1

    Squid works well as a transparent proxy, when used in conjunction with a log parser, might be just what you're looking for.

    1. Re:Cephalopod by joelmax · · Score: 1

      We are actually using Squid where I work, has been nothing but headaches as it randomly decided to stop blocking blacklisted sites with no log errors of any kind, upgrading is not an option for us, the newer versions actually have less features... its not one I would reccommend anymore as its path seems to have changed... We are actually looking at replacing it with a new appliance

  20. xangati by alen · · Score: 1

    lots of the tools and FW's are based on linux and open source

    we use one called xangati. it's an appliance that track's the amount of everyone's data use. there are alerts that trigger if you use too much data in a specified time

  21. The URL databasae is what you end up paying for by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

    I've used several URL tracking systems. None of them were entirely open source, but there are some available. The real costs come in with the URL database. These databases are complied and maintained by real people. There are some community driven databases that are free to use, Untangle has one, but they will not be as complete or consistent.

  22. Kerio Control by LoudMusic · · Score: 2

    I honestly am unsure of pricing but I believe it's fairly inexpensive. We use Kerio Control and are migrating to the 3110 appliance.

    http://www.kerio.com/control

    It does all kind of neat reporting.

    We also use Cymphonix traffic shaping devices that have insane detail on reporting but I believe they're very expensive.

    http://cymphonix.com/

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Kerio Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerio control's pricing is on their website, and isn't too bad if you're really using all of the features, but if you're only using it for the web usage replying it's a little overpriced.

    2. Re:Kerio Control by rveldpau · · Score: 1

      I'm replying to this in hopes to get it to stand out more. The real solutions here aren't easy to find. I already did this for ntop as well.

    3. Re:Kerio Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly am unsure of pricing but I believe it's fairly inexpensive. We use Kerio Control and are migrating to the 3110 appliance.

      http://www.kerio.com/control

      It does all kind of neat reporting.

      We also use Cymphonix traffic shaping devices that have insane detail on reporting but I believe they're very expensive.

      http://cymphonix.com/

      Cymphonix is big brother. It even keeps records of instant messaging. But you are right very expensive.

  23. Whitelisting has too much overhead by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Business shouldn't do blacklisting. They should do whitelisting (everything is forbidden, you only allow specifics).

    That presumes two things. 1) that the overhead of whitelisting is not prohibitive and 2) That your users have rather specific and unchanging needs. Speaking for our business, the overhead of whitelisting would be incredibly burdensome. We deal with many vendors and have to research topics all the time. There is no reasonable way to know in advance exactly which websites we will need to visit. Furthermore it requires a significant investment of time which could be better spend elsewhere.

    The best alternative is to block specific problem websites (Facebook, Twitter, etc for example) and only allow access to those via a whitelist. Keep logs of network access in case further problems arise. If someone is found to be ignoring company policies you can warn them or fire them and make an example out of them. You can solve 99% of the problem with quite a lot less work.

    1. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by dannys42 · · Score: 1

      I recently started working at a company that blocks certain websites. I'm not sure that blocking Facebook/Twitter does a whole lot for the company... personally I think it hurts more than it helps. The reason is that quite a few people these days have some sort of mobile that allows them to access those sites anyway. So all you've done is make it so it takes them more time to deal with it. Before, I'd check my personal mail using the company network because it was faster and more convenient, in and out, and I'm good. Now I have to deal with slower connections through the cell network. I'm not abusing the time or anything (and far within what would normally be considered a reasonable break), but it is less efficient. Heck there are smokers that take up far more time smoking than most others do with Facebook/Twitter.

      So the problem you have is people who do abuse their distractions. You don't solve that by making things inconvenient for everyone with technological barriers. You solve that, as you said, as a "people problem" and warm/fire them as appropriate.

      Resorting to technological barriers does two things: potentially lowers productivity/morale by making the company appear intolerant to people's emotional needs (eg. the purpose of breaks), and it makes the company seem like it doesn't know manage it's employees, allowing unproductive people to stick around (if they were unproductive before your barrier, they're going to find ways to be unproductive with your barrier), which will also lead to the productive people asking why they should be that productive.

    2. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It assumes three things, the two you mentioned and that they actually know what pages they need to unblock. For instance, slashdot requires slashdot.org and a.fsdn.com to be unblocked; my bank requires 5 websites to be unblocked to work properly, etc. If it were not for RequestPolicy, I would never have realized how many cdn sites are used or how many sites get some content from domain.com and domain.net. How can you expect people who can barely run their computers to be able to figure out what they need to request to be unblocked?

    3. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by sjbe · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that blocking Facebook/Twitter does a whole lot for the company... personally I think it hurts more than it helps. The reason is that quite a few people these days have some sort of mobile that allows them to access those sites anyway.

      That's fine if they do that because then they aren't using the company network. If it becomes a problem then you fire them for goofing off at work. This is a people problem, not a technology problem. Honestly companies generally don't care if people do a *little bit* of personal stuff during their day just so long as they don't cause any problems and get their work done. There are exceptions where companies need to bring down the technological hammer but these are fairly rare.

      Frankly if someone is spending to much time goofing off then it is probably best that they "succeed elsewhere".

    4. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      Then you need a better way to do the whitelisting :)

      We use a Squid proxy to filter HTTP traffic, and squidGuard to create the filtering policies. Shalla, IIRC the company that created squidGuard, has a really good list of domains and URLs that fit into various categories (i.e., porn, drugs, violence, social networking, spyware, etc.). You tell squidGuard which categories to block based upon your business needs, and squidGuard does the rest. You can even add rules that allow more liberal policies at certain times of the day (after hours, weekends, lunch time, etc.) and you can add rules that whitelist certain web sites in a category that you want blocked (for example, we block "chat" which includes /., but we explicitly allow ./).

      By having a community-maintained block list and blocking by category rather than individual domain or URL, the overhead associated with whitelisting goes way, way down.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      Haha, that reminds me of my old school district. They blocked just about everything interesting on the Internet, *except* for Slashdot. I always assumed that the guy who controlled the blacklist was also a slashdotter. One year they experimented with giving the secretaries the power to remotely monitor computers and add sites to the district wide blocklist. I got caught browsing Slashdot and immediately unplugged the computer so that my session would disappear from the monitoring software. . . By the time I was logged back in, whoever was in charge had unblocked Slashdot :D

    6. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Then you need a better way to do the whitelisting :)

      Having no whitelist at all is easier and cheaper than any whitelist. :-) Seriously, a whitelist is costly in terms of time, equipment and payroll. Absent some huge liability concern or legal requirement, I cannot fathom any reason why any company would bother. The return on investment is horrendous. It's much cheaper and easier to log usage, spot check occasionally and warn/fire any abusers.

      You tell squidGuard which categories to block based upon your business needs, and squidGuard does the rest. You can even add rules that allow more liberal policies at certain times of the day (after hours, weekends, lunch time, etc.) and you can add rules that whitelist certain web sites in a category that you want blocked (for example, we block "chat" which includes /., but we explicitly allow ./).

      I'm being pedantic but that is a blacklist, not a whitelist.

      By having a community-maintained block list and blocking by category rather than individual domain or URL, the overhead associated with whitelisting goes way, way down.

      And is utterly useless because any community other than my actual place of employment cannot possibly know what domains or URLs or other services we will need to use. Sure, some are easy to figure out but I have NEVER seen a filter that actually gets it right. The number of false positives and false negatives is guaranteed to be outrageously high. Furthermore I have to invest money in a equipment to host the software and personnel to maintain and monitor it. It's a complicated, expensive solution that I can solve much easier with two words: "You're fired".

    7. Re:Whitelisting has too much overhead by dannys42 · · Score: 1

      Umm... that was my point, or part of it. It is a people problem. The second part of my point is that companies that implement a technology solution do so because they lack the ability to manage their people.... ie. the managers are unable to correctly deal with the problem.

      Think of it this way... imagine you have a company where you have "free" stationary. Anyone can go ahead and get whatever they need. 99 out of 100 employes never have an issue. But then one day 1 employee decides to steel staplers and calculators and whatever. Then the company decides to institute a plan to require everyone to fill out a request form and justify why they need 3 pens.

      It's an overreaction (and not even a correct one) to what should have been a discipline issue. That's what the facebook/twitter blocking is to me. It's overkill for the wrong reasons. And all it does is make everyone else's lives more inconvenient.

  24. Very bad law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I care about someone elses' content? It's their job to monitor and enforce, not mine.

    1. Re:Very bad law by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Because schools of thought like this exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

      --
      Good-bye
  25. FreeBSD + IPF + Squid by rbeef · · Score: 1

    I use a transparent Squid proxy. Traffic is redirected using IP Fiter on a FreeBSD system. I could use PF (or IPFW) however just not enough time in the day to "fix" something that just aint broke at the moment.

  26. entangled web appliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.untangle.com. its free and runs on any Intel chip

    1. Re:entangled web appliance by gestap0v · · Score: 1

      its free until you need anything remotely functional and usefull

  27. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know of any software, my Big Brother on the other hand....

  28. GFI WebMonitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all you shouldn't seek a technical solution (alone) for a communication / policy problem. Talk to the employees and establish a resonable policy.

    Beyond that, check out if GFI WebMonitor is right for you.

    (disclosure: I work for GFI Software, not on that product though.)

  29. More than one kind of tracking by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 2

    Remember to track how much this tracking is costing you so that you have numbers to point to when you complain about it. You also need to sanitize the URLs for personal information since a lot of personal information gets passed through them. You could get sued, possibly face criminal charges, for gathering too much data.

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  30. And Skype??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please can somebody tell me how tho tell skype traffic from other p2p traffic?

    Is skype allowed in your workplace? Did you already saw how much noise (on the network) skype does? I did and it's driving me nuts...

  31. DansGuardian by HellKnite · · Score: 2

    DansGuardian with a proxy like squid should give you a basic websense-alike system - but even with all ports closed at the firewall except 80 and 443, bittorrent will likely still get through.

    If you're truly worried about litigation, it seems like you could find a little money to deal with the issue. Take a look at Palo Alto Networks firewalls, especially the up and coming low-end model the PA-200.

    1. Re:DansGuardian by shumacher · · Score: 1

      Agreed on DansGuardian. You'd want all ports closed for all users in the organization, including 80 and 443, then you'd want to create an exception for the Dansguardian box.

      Also, even if it's on older hardware, consider setting up a second box to serve as backup. Look into proxy autoconfiguration files. You can return two proxy addresses in an autoconfig file, and if your main proxy is down, your clients will silently fail over to the other box. The config files also allow your internal traffic to skip the proxy for things like your intranet site.

      Also, consider putting /var/log on it's own partition, if you aren't already. You don't want to let forgetting about your logging directory free space to be able to kick your whole organization off the web.

      On squid (DansGuardian is often used with squid) look at your http_safe_ports (I might have that variable a little munged, as I'm not in the config right now) to make sure it's right for your org, and that it matches what your firewall is allowing out.

    2. Re:DansGuardian by egarff · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with dansguardian too. I wrote a little wrapper once that wrote the logs to a database so it was easily queried. It has options for paying attention to ident and such also, so you can install ident on the clients and actually get usernames, or it'll log simply IP addresses.

  32. Untangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Untagle firewall. It has usage reports based on IP. I work at a library and can monitor everything every user/employee does and get a report daily. http://www.untangle.com/

    1. Re:Untangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Smoothwall (free) with a couple of home brew hacks (available from the community site) for filtering and scanning. Bung it on an old PC with a couple of old NICs and hey presto... web filtering...

      I've been using it for a few years and so far it has kept things pretty well under control.

      It uses a transparent proxy on the gateway to check and filter web traffic and will block sites based on keyword filers and block lists (way easier than a white list for a small business to look after).

      It's not perfect, but for 90% of employees it does the job. The other 10% result in locked down desktops and end point security. Leaving the one or two people who know a way round that, and I have found talking to them has been very interesting... there is always something else to learn in IT...

    2. Re:Untangle by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      We're just investigating untangle here as well. So far it seems to be working ok, although for IP address > username mapping, you have to get each user to run a little login script. (we haven't bothered, if someone is using loads of bandwidth we'll just track down the computer.

    3. Re:Untangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have several sites using this right out of the box. Works great and is fairly simple to setup.

  33. Re:Dear Slashdot by Applekid · · Score: 1

    I don't know what I'm doing for my job, and I would like you to do my research for me. Preferably your solution should be "open source", although I don't really know what that means, I just don't want to pay for it.

    What's wrong with minimizing the financial impact of regulatory compliance?

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  34. Simple method: shotgun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apply directly to your authoritarian face, submitter.

  35. what about a company policy instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if the company simply instituted a internet policy explicitly forbidding the use of company internet for piracy?

    1. Re:what about a company policy instead? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Because the law states the owner is responsible, and laws don't care about right, wrong, justice or morality.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  36. You all are assuming too much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people that are problem users in a typical company are not going to know how to set up a VPN, or SSH tunnel, or even a simple proxy. Standard solutions should work fine for the most part. After you set up your content filter and firewall, just track the data usage as was said previously. Being proactive will do FAR more than simply relying on a software or hardware package which is in all likelihood easily beat by the employees with the know-how. The employees without the know-how will be stopped by nearly any decent filter (the company I work for uses Cymtec which seems to work pretty well).

  37. Get a UTM by morgandelra · · Score: 1

    Some people prefer Untangle, but I have found that for Business usage, Endian Firewall is way better. Lots more options and stuff to play with. http://www.endian.com/ will provide you with: Transparent HTTP/DNS/FTP/SMTP/SIP proxying, NTOP, IPSEC, OpenVPN, multiple zones for network security and way more.

  38. Squid is your friend. by SwedishChef · · Score: 2

    I've set up several squid proxies for companies that claimed to want to keep track of employee's web surfing. The log files are pretty extensive and there are several 3rd party utilities out there that can provide reports that even managers can read. Most of the time. Going through the reports is a lot of work and usually the Achilles heel of this sort of project in my experience.

    A couple of things...
    1. Set your border router to accept connections from the Squid box and your Exchange (or email) servers only.
    2. Check for MAC addresses mapping to the same IP address. (Most employees don't understand how to spoof a MAC address but lots of them can change their IP address.)
    3. Fire the first person to be caught and make sure everyone in the company knows about it.

    If you set a Policy that mandates firing and don't do it then word will get out. If you don't bother to check the reports then word will get out. None of the companies that paid me exorbitant sums of money to set this sort of thing up ever fired anyone and all of them stopped bothering to check the reports after a few weeks. I think mostly because the managers were the ones doing most of the abuse and, after all, we can't fire *them*!.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
    1. Re:Squid is your friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They started doing this at the university I went to to stop piracy. I don't think they realized how low the signal to noise ratio is for a campus with thousands of people on it. Even the 2nd level.TLD only reports they published were huge. My friends and I went through it for laughs one day (as there were some interesting sites people went to), but I would hate to have that be a regular job of mine.

    2. Re:Squid is your friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't do more than keep the logs and pass the buck to the employee if someone comes a-calling, unless of course the employee can show they weren't doing anything wrong, and then I'd tell the company lawyer to tell the complainants to sod off if they persist. Either logs on a squid or using public addresses and some way to match employee to address+time; dhcp logs and an up-to-date mac assignment list would do, but 802.1x would be more precise. Run an abuse contact and act promptly, keep logs of everything you do. Doesn't mean you have to do much more than pass that buck, but does mean you have to be prompt about it. Heck, I'd even run a tor entry node for the employees and perhaps a tor exit node on a separate address just because, yes at the same time.

      And what shop assumes "email equals exchange" (which is not an email server but a "collaboration server" with a painfully shoddy email bridge) but then wants to go the el-cheapo open source route? I'm sure there's an expensive appliance somewhere that can do the same, and expensive consultants to set it up, just like you. If not, there's now a market for it, just like there's a market for out-sourcing hosting your oh-so-easy-to-admin exchange.

  39. Two OSS tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SquidProxy and DansGaurdian. The first an authenticated proxy, the second a content manager/proxy. You can blacklist and whitelist sites in addition to those DansGaurdian already has.

  40. The real solution by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is to get the law repealed.

    If business owners are on the hook for the behavior of their employees, they should get together and get this law repealed. If enough do, it sounds like a slam-dunk to me. The reason why it hasn't already been done is that probably too many business owners don't know that they're on the hook.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:The real solution by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Yep! I'd mod this comment up if I could. Not that I don't appreciate reading the comments to learn more about various proxy solutions out there -- but this is clearly a situation where the law itself is what's really unacceptable.

      It's simply not a good law, any time it's designed to punish someone other than the perpetrator as the responsible party. I don't live in New Zealand, but if I did? I'd definitely question whether I wanted to even provide ANY internet access to my employees, if I ran a business there with this type of legislation in effect.

      After all, no matter what barriers I construct, it's potentially possible that a crafty enough person would find a way around them to download copyrighted material and then I could lose my whole business over it. No thanks!

    2. Re:The real solution by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      It's simply not a good law, any time it's designed to punish someone other than the perpetrator as the responsible party.

      Agreed, so long as we go the other way as well: no more letting people off the hook for crimes they commit acting under the aegis of a corporation. I don't know how NZ law is about this, but US law is lousy with it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:The real solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I absolutely agree. You need to believe that you have influence and start organizing others to repeal the law.

    4. Re:The real solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You took the words right out of my mouth. When I read the article is sounded to me like some idiot politician who know nothing about how the internet works came up with some ridiculous idea and somehow go it passed into law. This not only has a negative impact on businesses but it will also inevitably increase the cost of doing business if this sort of tracking needs to take place. therefore it is also bad to the consumer as well.

  41. At risk of sounding like a shill... by SecuritySimian · · Score: 1

    As a previous poster suggested, about the only shoestring option that you have (and able to withstand legal scrutiny) is whitelisting. The downside is that it's a morale killer and you have to answer regularly to accusations of playing the morality police.

    As you stand a chance of experiencing legal penalties, your leadership should belly up for a proper tool. My personal pick through my years of managing this function is Websense Web Security. It's not as expensive as you might think, especially for what it brings to the table. Their pricing fits nicely for nearly any size of organization. I currently manage a 5000 seat deployment, and I couldn't be happier with the job it does for me, or the minimal amount of care and feeding that the system requires.

    -SS

  42. how long they spent on each site... by 1u3hr · · Score: 2
    "show how long they spent on each site"?

    How on earth could any software determine that? You may open a tab for a dozen sites . You can load a page of text, once, and spend an hour reading it with no further fetches. You could have a stock ticker/ weather stats/million other things running in a small window, gettign data every few seconds.

    Basically, unless you look over their shoulder, you can't know how much of their attention was on a site for how long.

    Classic mission creep: start with monitoring illegal downloads, end up checking on how the staff spend each minute at work, just because you can. Think how intrusive this is and how much it would be resented.

    1. Re:how long they spent on each site... by mzs · · Score: 1

      And what in fact does that do to to help the submitter's employer in the face of the new law? I think it is more indicative of the submitter's approach to users more than anything.

    2. Re:how long they spent on each site... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      "show how long they spent on each site"?

      How on earth could any software determine that?

      You could hide an image somewhere on the page, and then make it load extremely slowly -- and then just measure how long it takes to load the image. You will not know how long they are spending looking at the particular window or tab, but you will know how long they keep in open in their browser.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:how long they spent on each site... by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Yea, I had an employer that did this. Spend all day reading a handful of Slashposts( or whatever ), no problem.

      Screw up and leave a stock ticker open and updating in the background all day - all night, get an email from HR.

      Yea I was here at 3:30AM getting stock quotes... morons

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    4. Re:how long they spent on each site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free Gestapo hat with the software that does that I hear

    5. Re:how long they spent on each site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened to me: my manager called me, because I was more than double as long on the web as I worked. It was no problem however, since all sites I had visited were somehow ("somehow" meaning: sites such as slashdot included, since it was considered as being "IT") work-related.

  43. Squid as transparent proxy plus calamaris by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    Set up your firewall to redirect all outgoing port 80, 8080, etc packets to the proxy (running squid), then use calamaris to analyze the logs (or roll your own analysis). Squid can also block urls based or regular expression matching.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Squid as transparent proxy plus calamaris by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Set up your firewall to redirect all outgoing port 80, 8080, etc packets to the proxy (running squid), then use calamaris to analyze the logs (or roll your own analysis). Squid can also block urls based or regular expression matching.

      I would also use the authentication features that Squid has which can be integrated with Active Directory. This way a username can be more easily associated with an employees web activity. Finally, you might also use SquidGuard or DansGuardian for more granular (i.e. regex) filtration.

    2. Re:Squid as transparent proxy plus calamaris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use pfSense firewalls with squid configured as a transparent proxy (optionally with squid guard) which is what we use in our company.

      Of course with transparent proxy you cannot filter HTTPS traffic. To get around that, you may configure a internal DNS forwarder server
      that just overrides any hosts you want to block with other internal host (with some error page)

      OR, you can just block external access to port 80 and 443, and define proxy's in each user computer (this requires more effort in configurations,
      depending on your company workers)

  44. Re:Dear Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Slashdot. I'm an arrogant asshole who ridicules anyone who asks for even the slightest bit of help. Additionally I have almost negligible social skills and use Anonymous Coward to hide my sociopathic hostility to others.

  45. What is lacking in your current solution? by nrozema · · Score: 2

    Sounds like your current solution - "category" based filtering at the border combined with a strong company policy - is already more than adequate to cover most potential liability to the company.

    The rest of your question sounds like you're using this legislation as an excuse to implement some downright draconian and invasive "productivity enforcement" measures that have nothing to do with the stated problem.

  46. Irony? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Just pirate one of the commercial spyware tools.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  47. Transfer the liability to your employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give each employee fifty dollars a month and let them arrange their own internet connections.

  48. Untangle by OneC0de · · Score: 1

    http://www.untangle.com/ Is a great, free tool to help block, track, and limit web browsing activities. Based off of Debian I think.

  49. Trust by nilbog · · Score: 1

    Hire and continue to employ people you trust. If you don't trust them to be responsible with their internet usage, why are you paying them? The only thing web monitoring will do is let them know that you don't trust them, and give them permission to act in an untrustworthy manner.

    --
    or else!
  50. Massive waste of time by nfc_Death · · Score: 1

    I cannot imagine a bigger waste of HR, IT, or managements time to go chasing around data regarding their employees web usage.
    If you hired intelligent, effective management you wouldn't need to go policing your employees after the fact.
    Instead of asking; How can we find out which of our employees isn't working and then make them pay, how about finding out which of our employees is no longer being challenged or effective in their job and how can we help them.
    You aren't their parents you're their employer, it's your job help them succeed, and if you cannot then refill the position.

  51. Barracuda Web Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will do everything you need.....

  52. Untangle Lite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might look at Untangle.com for Untangle Lite version. Basic reporting and VERY lite filtering for free, paid versions with more features also available. Relatively simple interface.

  53. Re:Dear Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me Google that for you. http://tinyurl.com/3r4m3t3

  54. pfSense with Squid is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pfSense has a very easy to use Squid module, which along with the LightSquid proxy report module will do the job. Easy and no cost

  55. Squid Cache with Webalizer and/or Ntop by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    Both of these have pretty colors that management will like.

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  56. Double hammer by Meeni · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, you probably have to choose between two different liabilities. On one hand, that new law seems to mandate that you take proper actions to protect your network against illegal use. On the other hand, any broad surveillance of your employees is probably illegal regarding work laws, and if you engage in that, you might be liable for criminal activities (check in your own country, that differs wildly, but is not uncommon that even when using your equipments, your employees have a right to privacy). Choose your evil.

    1. Re:Double hammer by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      IN the US, as IT, i can look at any machine attached to our network at any time. Even the few private machines we've allowed have a click through basically saying "all your base are belong to us, while connected to the network". It is owned wholly by the business and the user has zero expectation of privacy, period. Also, in countires where they allow user privacy, its easy to overcome by simply not allowing the machine to house any personal data, or make them work at common-use terminals ( a steel stamping worker doesnt have an expectation of privacy while running the stamper does he? etc etc.) In practice there is no such thing as worker computer privacy in any meaningful way, nor should there be.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Double hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should there be privacy in work restrooms? or showers?

  57. a tool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are. Fight the man, not the people.
    -fellow upside-downian from across the other side of the puddle

  58. Websense by Spunkee · · Score: 0

    We use Websense, but I have no idea how much it costs. Websense categorizes websites based on URL and you can block individual categories. You can also block protocols individually. You can also just log and not block. Very flexible. The database of categories is updated daily. You can customize what they categorize as much as you want. If you submit a request for global recategorization, it usually gets done within an hour. This goes out to the public database. This is common when you launch a website that used to be a parked domain. You make sure Websense has it categorized correctly rather than as "parked domain" because that one is usually blocked.

    Now the problem with website categorization is that 90% of the internet is not categorized by Websense. Then there is the increasing problem of sites serving content from multiple URLs or IPs. SSL is only blockable if you explicitly put the IP in. URLs are parsed with regex, so you get some false positives sometimes.

    You probably don't need to block sites as much as you need to block protocols. It does that too. You can also track bandwidth usage, etc. There is full AD integration and you can define different blocking policies based on group membership, etc.

    You can do whitelist only with it if you want.

    After writing all of that it sounds expensive. I don't know how much it costs. You can probably use Websense Express depending on your needs and number of employees.

  59. All nice till someone starts using Ultrasurf by deniea · · Score: 1

    With Ultrasurf it is possible to bypass the proxy and the visits are not logged..

    http://ultrasurf.us/

    So then you'll have to start disalowing all the ultrasurf binaries in your policy..=

  60. Slippery slope by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I'm required to stop copyright violations, so how can I best spy on my employees' surfing habits and see how much time they spend on each website?"

    First: You are not required to monitor what you employees download at all. Under NZ law it is not illegal to watch copyrighted material via direct download (youtube etc.) You only need to worry about p2p applications. These are easy to spot as they *upload* to lots of different ip addresses at the same time. If someone has 500 open ports and a Gigabit/second outgoing bandwidth, go talk to him!

    Second: People tend to leave their browsers on all day with 10 different tabs open, so even if you could view the time spent on different sites, that info would be meaningless.

    Third: Spying on your employees surfing habits can piss them off, and is likely not worth it, for the same reasons why people don't work better if you mount "security" cameras behind their backs.

    1. Re:Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are employees entitled to privacy at the office over browsing habits? If they get pissed off, tell them to fuck off. It's NOT their equipment OR bandwidth and if the employer wants to mandate use policies, tough.

    2. Re:Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im surprised at the amount of posts that go along with monitoring users internet usage!

      Why the hell bother, it is an administrative nightmare to police it, and people generally don't like being spied on. Just allow everything, and do automated monitoring of the firewall/proxy logs for anything illegal, that can be tied to the IP of the user, and if traffic gets heavy, limit the throughput from those sites that you deem too heavy, not relevant to the business. Video sites come to mind.

      I think this is what we do in our enterprise. youtube is slow, but I can download Oracle patches at 3-4MiB/s

  61. how about good old.. by rainhill · · Score: 1
  62. Hotels? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

    How does this work in Hotels, Motels, B&Bs? The ones that offer internet access. Or are we going to find that visiting NZ means going offline for the trip?
    I've been to NZ, so I know that internet access at such locations is patchy at best, but it could get a lot worse.

    --
    RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  63. simple by oever · · Score: 2

    be google

    --
    DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
  64. Simple answer: by Tastecicles · · Score: 0

    WORK TIME is for WORK RELATED ACTIVITY.

    P2P is for your HOME CONNECTION in your OWN TIME.

    I think it would be entirely justifiable for a firm to enforce a zero tolerance policy, with a no-quarter instant dismissal policy for ANY AND ALL violations!

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  65. Limit bandwith by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Limit the bandwith of your employees. There is no need for a huge bandwith if they are only viewing text sites, but downloading stuff becomes impossible.

  66. Yeah, here's a winner: by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    The winning move would have been to fight tooth and nail to prevent this idiotic legislation from being passed in the first place. I mean really, it says what? "Let's punish whoever we can get our hands on, for someone else's crime."

    Although I am from the US, I tend to agree with many of the criticisms saying that we are responsible as a group for our own loss of freedom. People didn't speak up when they should have. Now they suffer. That's the way it works.

    1. Re:Yeah, here's a winner: by ehintz · · Score: 2

      Actually, we pretty much got screwed here. Quite a lot like PATRIOT got jammed through in the post 911 environment, actually. National figured out they had a wonderful opportunity with the CHC earthquakes and used the state of emergency powers (intended to streamline govt during those sorts of situations and respond as required to real emergencies) and instead rammed through unpopular stuff. They tried to put through another copyright bill about 3-odd years ago but it went through the normal review process, and the protest machine got going and neutered the worst of it. This time around they used the state of emergency powers to push it through with so little time that effective protests simply weren't possible.

      Naturally the best solution now would be to vote the bastards out, but we still suffer from the same problem the US does, apathy looks likely to rule the day in this November's election.

      Amusingly enough, the new law has one ironic effect. Before, infringement notices to ISPs generally got passed on to the offending user with a don't-be-bad note. The new law has a provision that the ISP has the right to charge for the time this takes them to research. In most cases this now means the ISP, upon receiving the infringement notice, turns around and invoices the complainant $25 before going any further (and as the complainants are usually mostly automated scripts, it mostly seems to end there). Ironically enough, at least in the short term, it probably means *less* punters getting infringement notices, and more costs to the "rights holders" for pursuing the process. In some ways a bit of a phyrric victory.

      --
      ehintz
  67. With such laws, why bother trying? by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 2

    There's no 100% safe method to provide an internet connection for employees and prevent abuse. So if these ridiculous laws persist, you will need to transfer ownership of each employee's internet connection to said employee. Ask your lawyers how to accomplish that ...

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  68. Morals by WorldPiece · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems to me that asking this question here is like going on a vegetarian's blog and asking whats the best cheap knife to butcher a cow with...

    1. Re:Morals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. There is quite a mix of nerds/geeks here, some of whom are network admins who either have direct experience doing this sort of thing or at least know how and understand why it needs to be done.

      It is more like asking "whats the best cheap knife to butcher a cow with..." on a food blog that happens to have quite a lot of vegetarians on it, but also has meat eaters and butchers.

  69. Talk to a lawyer by brainzach · · Score: 1

    Find out what requirements you need to follow so that you won't be held liable for what an employee downloads on your connection.

    IANAL, but I would assume that you won't be held liable if some rogue employee hacks to bypass your security measures to prevent p2p downloads. There will likely be certain requirements that must be met before you are held liable for what an employee does.

  70. I would tell the business owner by SlippyToad · · Score: 2

    "Next time you purchase an election, make sure you don't elect morons who slap stupid laws up without thinking about their undesired consequences."

    --OR--

    "This is what you wanted, so this is what you're getting. You wanted business-friendly government, and now you have it. PAY UP."

    I wouldn't offer them a cheap solution at all. In fact, I'd offer them the most expensive solution you can find.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    1. Re:I would tell the business owner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, this law was pushed by the previous government too. The only reason they dropped it was because it was attracting negative publicity too close to an election.

    2. Re:I would tell the business owner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just an FYI... This isn't about who was elected. The labour government prior to the current national government drafted this law, and the national government passed it. This is the product of both horses in a two horse race.

  71. Untangle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about untangle, there is a free version and that what we are using at work, work great.

  72. Monitoring and Remote Control solutions by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Here is what I found in researching a solution for a community college. Most are way out of range on the price scale, but some are quite attractive. Companies and Products to provide solutions for "employee monitoring" Spector CNE - $130 per seat Interguard SONAR - $45000 IMonitor EAM Pro - $6500 for 500 PCs (20% discount for edu) Work Examniner Standard - around $25 per seat OS Monitor (Asia) 200 users $900 Basic Version $1800 full version OfficeShield - $20 per seat at 100 Pearl Echo Suite - $?? Microsoft Gold Partner NetVizor - 100 seats $1355 / 250 seats $2545

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  73. Untangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.untangle.com/

    Untangle is a software appliance that manages every aspect of network control from content security to web caching, remote access to policy enforcement, all from one simple, drag & drop command center.

    Free and easy. Just provide your own hardware...

  74. mission control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FRANKLIN and JOHNSON approach the CEO.
    Franklin & Johnson: SIR!
    CEO: I didn't ask for you
    Franklin: We're finished with the employee internet usage analysis
    Johnson: It's not pretty.
    CEO: What's not pretty? What is this about, I'm trying to print an e-mail here.
    Johnson: Sir, Franklin here has some bad news about employee productivity.
    Franklin: Yes, Sir.
    Johnson: Tell him, Franklin.
    Franklin: It's about Reddit.
    CEO: Ahaha, reddit. I'm on that site now. Those clowns.
    (Johnson and Franklin look at each other)
    CEO: Did you know that companies still use Windows 98??
    (Johnson and Franklin look at each other)
    CEO: Well, did you, Johnson?
    Johnson: Actually I did know that.
    CEO: Bullshit, you didn't know shit. Did you know about this Franklin?
    Franklin (hedging): Uh, I suspected as much.
    CEO: Bullshit, Franklin, you didn't suspect shit. This is going to change everything.
    (Johsnon and Franklin look at each other).
    CEO: Do you have any idea what a Windows 98 license costs?
    Franklin tries to change the subject: Sir, about this report.
    CEO: ...well it's a hell of a lot cheaper than what we're paying now.
    Johnson: Franklin has something he wants to tell you.
    CEO: it comes with Wordpad. We could finally put an end to this openoffice versus microsoft office bullshit you guys are always on my ass about. Now there's a standard I could get behind.
    Johnson (meekly): I, uh.
    CEO (dreamily). Anyway, guys, I'm going to need you to look into this and get back to me a cost/benefit analysis by next week. I want you to consider a full desktop cycle, where we source all new development machines with windows 98 class hardware, that shit must be like $50 a pop now.
    Johnson gulps.
    CEO: Now what was it you had to tell me Franklin?
    Franklin: About the employee Internet usage, Sir.
    CEO: RIght! You have my full attention. What are these schmucks wasting all their time on.
    Franklin: well, to look at the numbers here, it would seem to be reddit.
    CEO: you keep reddit out of this.
    Franklin (boldly): Sir, in an 8-hour workday, the average employee spends 9.5 hours on Reddit.
    CEO reflects: Yeah, that's about right. If we're just talking about catching up on the front page and top comments.
    Franklin, deliberately: Sir, I said, in an eight-hour workday, an employee spends an average of 9.5 hours on Reddit.
    CEO: right...
    Franklin: That's not even possible.
    CEO: I'm surprised it's not more. A lot of people eat lunch at their desks.
    Franklin: The eight hours includes lunch.
    CEO: Franklin, I'm not going to get into an argument over work hours with you, we are an industry-leading shop. Besides, maybe not everyone is a redditor, the average could really be higher.
    Franklin: that doesn't make any sense. anyway, my recommendation is to block this site.
    CEO: what site.
    Franklin: Reddit, sir.
    CEO: What about reddit?
    Franklin: We should block reddit, sir.
    CEO: I don't understand what you're saying.
    Johnson: He's saying we should block reddit, Sir.
    CEO, aghast: Are you two out of your mind??
    Johnson: according to our analysis, productivity would increase by 278% within thirty-five minutes..
    CEO reflects. Seething anger: "productivity"? "Pro-duc-tivity"
    Franklin: People would get work done.
    CEO, bitter. Work? What do you think this place is, a fucking shit shoveling plant? We have customers. Let me tell you schmucks how to run a business. You increase prices, and you cut costs.
    Franklin and Johnson are bewildered.
    CEO: You want to increase prices, I got my sales team working on doubling it. You want to cut costs, well, you know what -- fuck that windows 98 report. I've just made my decision. Within 2 weeks I want a windows 98 on every desk in this office.
    Franklin and Johnson look down in dejected failure.
    CEO: Yeah, bitches. That's called leadership. Reddit just saved this company at least $100,000 over the next couple years. Now get out of my sight. Go on, go go go go there's a kitten with ice cream over it. You want to block that? Fucking animals. (mutters) want to run a Nazi concentration camp.
    CEO scrolls and chuckles.
    [exeunt Franklin and Johnson]

  75. Untangle by sir+lox+elroy · · Score: 0

    Untangle firewall has good web proxy, and protocol control. You can filter by type etc... Easy to use. Transparent bridge setup if you already have a firewall. Can block all common proxy sites, and you can install the firewall module and turn off peoples ability to go out on a VPN unless they come from specific IPs. It can also do Ad Blocking, Spyware Blocking, Virus Blocking, IPS, IDS, get OpenSource system. I use it at home and work, and it is Free as in beer if you bring your own hardware. http://www.untangle.com/

    --
    Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
  76. UNTANGLE!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think that the best solution out there is UNTANGLE. you can install it on pretty cheap hardware as a transparent bridge and you have very granular control over every aspect of the internet. it uses a module system, you only have to decide which modules to deploy, and it takes care of the rest.

    you can track each user and generate automatic reports that are e-mailed to you.

    whitelist functionality supported, and it has a pretty good free content filter (of which p2p is one category), and if you pay for the subscription you get a really great filter.

    antivirus also helps a little, might be cheaper to pay for kapersky on the firewall and just use cheap/free antivirus on each machine (or just lock down all of the ports, but that usually causes a lot more bitching).

    The web cache helps a ton for bandwidth use! it has almost halved our bandwidth use at home because my wife and i generally read all of the same web-pages.

    check it out here: http://www.untangle.com/

  77. Or encrypted to a nearby country by Quila · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What would cost more, censorware acceptable to the government, or a small server hosted in the Philippines?

  78. Get somebody in the lobbyist's office by guruevi · · Score: 2

    Hire somebody to infiltrate the lobbyists for those laws offices. Have them download your company's stuff which you do not license to them and report it. Do the same for any politician that voted this law into office.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  79. Cymtec Sentry has been an inexpensive solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We’ve been using a URL/Web Policy enforcement tool from Cymtec. It’s called Sentry and it blocks Websites by Category as well using McAfee’s Smart Filter Software for automated updates. Easy executive reporting on users and violations. Ability to enforce policy and drop packets at the application layer as well. Under $4K annually so it’s cheaper than getting this from our ISP.

    http://www.cymtec.com/products/cymtec-sentry/multi-office/

  80. LowCost Sensorship Tools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Slashdot: Low-Cost Tools To Track Country Population' Web Use?

    With love from China (Iran/...) !

  81. Don't buy Cymphonix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cymphonix boxes are buggy, I've been working around problems with ours for too long, we're switching to Barracuda soon.

  82. If you can't change the law....use Cymtec Sentry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this out. We’ve been using a URL/Web Policy enforcement tool from Cymtec. It’s called Sentry and it blocks Websites by Category as well using McAfee’s Smart Filter Software for automated updates. Easy executive reporting on users and violations. Ability to enforce policy and drop packets at the application layer as well. Under $4K annually so it’s cheaper than getting this from our ISP.

    http://www.cymtec.com/products/cymtec-sentry/multi-office/

  83. Untangle by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 2

    Untangle is probably what you want

    www.untangle.com

    I know I know where do i get off actually answering the questions asked.

  84. Argus by fmwap · · Score: 1

    While this won't track URL's, we use Argus for tracking bandwidth/host usage.

    It's got a nice client interface to insert data into MySQL, damn near real-time, I can pull accurate reports within 30 seconds. Unfortunately the MySQL feature is kinda new & there's no really good web interfaces.

    Not really an out of the box solution either, but it's free & if you're familiar with MySQL and web development, you can make a nice reporting interface fairly easily. I whipped one up with jQuery and flot for charting over a weekend, and tied it into our inventory database. It'll show network utilization grouped by the local source, with a count for bytes sent/recv for each remote host. But it's layer 2-4 only, so no URL's are reported.

    One of these days I might release my web interface for Argus, but the code needs cleanup and commenting so eh...I wouldn't expect it any time soon.

    http://www.qosient.com/argus/

  85. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What disciplinary actions do you take, and why?

  86. fuck off and die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here's my advice:

    maybe you shouldn't be such a fucking tool, asking for advice on how to spy on your own employees, in order to more efficiently rat them out to Die Polizei. Slashdot, why are you helping this dickbag??

  87. The American Way by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Is to get the law repealed.

    If business owners are on the hook for the behavior of their employees, they should get together and get this law repealed. If enough do, it sounds like a slam-dunk to me. The reason why it hasn't already been done is that probably too many business owners don't know that they're on the hook.

    That's certainly how it would be resolved in the U.S.A.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  88. etc/hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add your list of unapproved sites to your hosts files, then chmod 644 /etc/hosts

    Just Google for the lists of sites and add them like this

    127.0.0.1 bing.com
    127.0.0.1 slashdot.org

  89. Solutions by dissy · · Score: 1

    I use a combination of ZeroShell for routing, and Untangle for monitoring and filtering.

    Untangle comes with modules, about half of which are free and open source, and the other half commercial.
    This past year things have been going a bit downhill for the free version, namely two critical modules were made paid-only, and a webfilter-lite made to replace it.
    They also now stick ads on your adblocker pages if you don't have at least one paid module :/ (This is easy enough to block, ironically using Untangle itself, to filter its two ad URLs... But the point still remains)

    Most of the Untangle paid modules are more for a corporate setting, while the home usage options were free. The main downside I see to the paid modules are they are all monthly/yearly costs. Not a single "Pay for it and forget about it" option.

    That said, I dropped all the paid modules and am running the free version both at home and work.

    At home it's nice for the http/email stream virus scanning, which it sends RST packets if it detects anything to keep the infection from even reaching the PCs.
    At work we use it for filtering, unfortunately for a similar reason.

    It also has some nice reports too, and a separate interface so you can grant managers access to the reports but not the controls/settings.
    You can run it as a router or as a transparent bridge in case you can't make changes to your network setup. Just pop it between the edge router and your switch.

    I hate having to filter like this personally, but it's being demanded from the top, and not exactly the battle I want to give up my job over, so there it is.

  90. We used some expensive stuff by Quila · · Score: 1

    No computer in a place I worked can VPN or tunnel by any known means in or out, except for two designated terminal servers, which can't initiate sessions, and which users can't access from the inside. Remote shell sessions, blocked. SSH, blocked. Even telnet, IM, chat, POP and IMAP are blocked. Pretty much the only thing possible is straight web surffing, and a lot of sites and content types (like video) are blocked. And it's not all just by port but by traffic and content analysis.

    Yes, it's all obscenely expensive, IDS (with signature subscriptions), routers, firewalls and several other servers with expensive software involved just for that. The only thing cheap was GPO to block things like installing software or any ActiveX components.

    It makes me wonder how big the IT industry lobby was in getting this law passed.

    1. Re:We used some expensive stuff by youngatheart · · Score: 1

      Really? I tunnel through a VPN on 443 (SSL) and our firewall/filter blocks that stuff too.

      The GPO block is harder to get around, you have to be able to boot from your own media (thumb or CD is handy) and our stations BIOS are locked down with a password, but of course, if you open the case and boot your own drive as primary, then you're golden.

      Warning: Some cases have alarms on them that they've been opened, most don't. Test with a neighbor's first.

      The way I understand it, it isn't possible to tell SSL from VPN traffic without setting up MITM, which is not foolproof, trivial or necessarily legal.

      Oh, and yesterday I discovered the desktop sharing software Mikogo, which doesn't require installation and apparently uses an encrypted connection over 443. It isn't blocked by the system by default either. (Mikogo says they "work with" your existing proxies and firewalls. "Work despite" might have been a more accurate phrasing.)

      Disclaimer: I am the admin, I don't have to work around the restrictions, but I use the VPN as a way of testing from external IPs. I know what is possible and why in part because I have to worry about people getting past it.

  91. Not a legitamite reason to spy on your workers by zenyu · · Score: 1

    If someone has named an employee as selling your trade secrets that's a legitimate reason to spy on that employee. But it's not legitimate to spy on everyone because you have a bad apple in the bunch.

    If your boss gets a hair brained idea like that you should first attempt to talk them off the ledge, and if that fails hand in your resignation. You don't want that on your conscience for the rest of your life and a company with that kind of oppressive corporate culture is not likely be a good place to work in the short run or to succeed in the long run.

    What she really needs to do is talk to her insurance agent and get coverage that protects the company when it gets sued. She should also hire a lawyer to sit with you and someone from operations and come up with an employee handbook that burdens the company's business with as few addition costs as possible while still allowing the company to fire employees that cause more trouble than they are worth. Once a decent cost estimate for all this is available she needs to adjust her prices 5%-20% to account for the new costs imposed by the law, other business in the same sector will be under the same pressure as well. She should make sure that she lists the reason for the price increases in the announcement.

    She should also join some kind of business lobbying coalition. Many countries have "Chamber of Commerce" type lobbying groups which will give your Senators and Representatives and their families free vacations to Bali and the like if they "play ball". This should make sure the really dumb laws mostly just hurt poor people.

  92. Low Cost Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eSoft provides some awesome solutions and reporting for website usage and employee tracking, including free virtual appliances (website blocking by category is extra).

    www.esoft.com

  93. Untangle ? by CozmoKramer · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you could do something interesting with www.untangle.com. With the webfiltering options... It's kind of designed for this stuff...

  94. Untangle and OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Untangle and OpenDNS. Works for me.

  95. These are not the packets you are looking for... by Simulant · · Score: 1

    The OP is asking for information on employees that has little to do with stopping copyright violations.

    Also, a simple Google search would turn up plenty of commercial content filters out that will do what exactly what he asks.

  96. Untangle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never used it myself, but I'm pretty sure Untangle can do that sort of stuff. http://www.untangle.com/

  97. OpenDNS by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Just use OpenDNS and put blocks on all related categories. Done.

    Or, you could just force group policy via active directory to not allow removal of browsing history, though this won't stop other browsers (assuming you let them install anything) nor P2P programs (which OpenDNS can't stop once installed, but can stop from downloading).

    Of course, if you have wifi, good luck, cause you'll need router level logging or an appliance.

    I personally think you should just hire an extra person per employee to stand behind them as they work. Though, I'm not sure even that would satisfy the draconian New Zealand government.

    --
    I8-D
  98. EdgeWave iPrism Appliance / Reporting surf duratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    red-nz ....i have a winner for you. i have you researched EdgeWave. They have a self-contained appliance called the "iPrism" that will give you a report just like you are asking with time of surfing duration. It is called Web Hourly Statistics. www.edgewave.com

  99. Oh fuck no! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    We have some good firewalls that are capable of doing basic filtering by 'category,' e.g. P2P sites,

    Sounds like he's using one of those awful fucking hellspawned Watchguard boxes. The P2P filter blocks harmless P2P news sites and forums while allowing torrents and other P2P programs to operate unhindered. Block "Downloads" for extra fun, then your employees won't be able to browse public domain clip art sites and your IT guys won't be able to access Sourceforge.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  100. What kind of outfit.. by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

    are you running there ? .. There are very few positions in most businesses where Internet access is required to perform your job.. This is why I have always thought that web based apps and cloud computing are going to cause more problems than it solves.. Now you have to play babysitter. If you can't trust employees to do the right thing with access it's best that they not have it at all.

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  101. Elapsed time on a site is impossible by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    When your browser opens a connection to a web site, it creates a client-side socket and makes the request over that connection. The web server services that request, sends a reply, and then can opt to close the connection or wait for more data from the client (persisten connection). Not all web sites (services) use persistent connections and not all operating systems/web browsers keep the client side socket open for "more data".

    Think of it this way: It's not like making a phone phone call where both ends are established and a magic counter begins runing. The technology was never engineered to do that. It's more like tying a message to brick and throwing it over a wall and then waiting for another brick to come back with a replay attached. You really have no method to tell for sure if the website you were connecting to actually threw the brick back. You have no method to tell if the attached reply wasn't intercepted on it's way over the wall.

    The best you can hope for is a timestamp from your border gateway showing the egress connection. You can extrapolate how long a person _may_ have been on a site by looking at the duration their machine was opening connections to it.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  102. software lockdown will block 95% of users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The easiest way to deal with this is to prevent users from installing P2P software. Unless your users are doing application testing (and that should be first done from the IT department), then having them setup with a set of applications with no permissions to add more (and I believe you can block them from installing apps in personal directories, though I am not a windows specialist and cannot give you instructions on how to do that), you're preventing 95% of people from using P2P.

    Of course, that assumes that you're going to have IT do a program install check on each of the machines, and that none of your employees use software requiring admin permissions to run properly.

    After that, just use one of the other suggested methods of bandwidth usage reporting and talk to those users. If you can find no valid reason for the bandwidth use, have IT inspect their machines. If you find fault, act upon it.

    Also before doing that, make sure every employee has been clearly informed of the usage policy of the network at your company. In said policy, outline the consequences of breaching the rules established in said policy. And leave a clause that allows for random spot-check of any computer at the discretion of either IT or any superiors.

  103. use an applicance or a cloud solution by Binary+Bites · · Score: 2

    If you have all users in the same location, you could use Blue Coat Enterprise Reporter. If you have mobile users, you could use the Blue Coat ThreatPulse service which is a SaaS solution.

  104. Get another job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If New Zealand is dumb enough to pass such an asinine law then you need to get another job. It seems like governments are getting dumber and dumber. What a bunch of a-holes. Looks like the content industry has made some big donations to your elected representatives.

  105. Untangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.untangle.com

    I've been using this software to control my home, business and remote networks for over five years now. It is not perfect, but the price is right and it will accomplish what you need, plus much more. I can't recommend it highly enough.

  106. Is this the right place to ask? by richtaur · · Score: 1

    IDK about you guys but I'd be insulted if someone wanted to track my web usage. Nowhere I've ever worked (Yahoo!, Raptr, etc.) has monitored or restricted our Internet access, and I'd simply not tolerate it if they tried. Are most geeks here similar or is tracking seen as acceptable?

    1. Re:Is this the right place to ask? by RoutingGeek · · Score: 1

      Ha! You just don't know it! It's typically done it a hidden manner (ie your browser has no "proxy" configured). Current tools are very intelligent and nearly undetectable.

  107. pfSense can do this. http://www.pfsense.org/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pfSense 2.0 is a FreeBSD Firewall/router that can do Layer 7 filtering for P2P protocols. You can also easily install packages for squid and squidguard to transparently proxy web connections and block undesireable sites and/or content. You can use its own user manager or Radius to require the users to login to use the internet, etc.
    It an do dialin, VPN server and client, loadbalancing and uses the pf packet filter from OpenBSD.

    The software costs nothing and is easily maintained and installed.

    http://www.pfsense.org/

  108. The IDS is a trip by Quila · · Score: 1

    Most people think of it as something to monitor outside traffic coming in, but it can also be used to monitor inside traffic going out.

    Seriously, the place was locked down tight. I had to get a rule change in a firewall approved through channels just to get two internal servers to talk to each other.

  109. Use privoxy and splunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use privoxy for webproxy. It is mainly aimed on removing ads but it acts great to capture traffic data depending on the level of debug you set. Use splunk on the data to do your reporting.

    privoxy also also black/white listing and is very comprehensive in what you can allow or restrict. Plus I got this done in my organization it almost completely removed malicious code from running via websites. It appears that the majoriy of the webhacks are coming from the ads rather than the main site itself. So privoxy too care of it. Works great. Decided not to pursue websense with privoxy doing the job.

  110. Dont Try by doas777 · · Score: 1

    to be honest, the best possible outcome, is that every business in AU and NZ does nothing, and when they all get sued/charged, then the courts and the legislature will deal with their own mess, instead of passing it on to you, like they tried to do with this law.

    1. Re:Dont Try by guruevi · · Score: 2

      There's a sucker born every minute and most suckers get to management somehow. Those manager will try to cover their asses and thus implement some expensive solution from someone which is promoted in one of those free CIO magazines but in the end does nothing.

      Once it's legislated it's usually too late. The law is there and hard (if not impossible) to remove. Those that want these laws are not going to go for the big companies, they're going to go for the small ones that don't have the money to put up a fight and thus have to pay into the racket. Once that happens, they have precedent for ever larger companies and eventually individuals.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  111. Understand the problem before trying to fix it by FLaMeBoY · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 3-strikes law covers P2P traffic only. Adding web traffic reporting isn't going to do anything to help you.

    Now if you are being asked to do web traffic reporting then sit down with management and work out what they want, why and who is going to be responsible for reviewing traffic (hint - this should be HR not IT). Doing this should give you enough information to justify some expenditure, even if it is just a new server/VM for Squid.

    1. Re:Understand the problem before trying to fix it by rdebath · · Score: 1

      Except when the web traffic is "P2P" of course; like it is whenever they say it is.

      All net traffic is between two peers, this is a legal (and journo's) distinction without any real world (eg: technical) meaning. The closest you can get to what they really mean is probably that a company is paying for the machine you're connecting to not an individual.

      So you couldn't possibly encode that in a filter which means you have to show 'best efforts', get some piece of software that promises to do the impossible and you're in a good position to defend when that accusation comes along.

  112. Watching Network traffic totally misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they bring in a half-dozen dvds of mp3s from home and copy them to the computer? It is still a copyright violation. Have a policy about DRM on people's machines and scan for these files on their hard drives. There is probably software that makes this easy.

  113. Seconding Squid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Set up NTLM browser authentication if your a Windows shop (warning this can break some non-authenticating apps, but it will save you from having to track down who held what IP when on the DHCP server). Then use a combination of cut, sort, uniq with count to print out stats. Awk, Perl or Python if you're more gangsta. Similar to here: http://dvas0004.wordpress.com/tag/squid/

    It's not nearly as pretty as what WebSense or Bluecoat Reporter will print out, but with a little tweaking and perhaps importing into Excel you
    can create bar graphs. If you're just looking for copyright offenders, this should be pretty easy. The general crap HR often wants 'time spent on the web' is very hard to gauge with even the expensive tools, since leaving a tab with a weather.com open will look like you've surfed it 10,000 times.

    Honestly, I just use CLI tools to analyze logs, no pretty graphics but keep in mind they do math and print out stats on things like bytes used. You can always paste it into a doc or pdf and spruce it up with graphs.

  114. TimeTracker, used it for years by holophrastic · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/ttracker/
    Basically, it does nothing but track the titlebars of every window that's open, and which one is in focus at any given time. And since every browser lists the URL in the title bar, it works like magic.

    And it writes everything to a simple CSV file, so you can analyze it any way you choose. But it also has some nifty reporting screens, if you really care.

    If you're only interested in web access, there's something else that you can do. Look into ".pac" files on windows. Basically, think a javascript file that gets run every time any URL is accessed by anything in all of windows. As in "return null" will make everything die, and "return slashdot.org" will make every URL return the slashdot homepage. You can easily write a five-line jscript file to log everything to a file through the FSO.

  115. If you have to ask... by RoutingGeek · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you have to ask this question, you are not ready for the real life fact of what it will cost you from a time and support perspective. I, along with another engineer, manage web filtering for a company of ~1200 employees. Though we have many duties in our roles, we both spend significant amounts of time ongoing on web filtering activities from exceptions to the reports on user behavior (and this is using high-end web filtering gear like BlueCoat and Palo Alto). It is simply not worth your time to use technology to replace what your management should be doing. Knowing of this new anti-piracy rule, you should use this as an opportunity to discuss the situation with all of your team-leads/supervisors/managers and make them aware. Have them make their teams aware. Let them know that there are two outcomes -- extremely restrictive web filtering or an honesty system. I think with appropriate communication you'll find the honesty system works quite well.

  116. A pyrrhic victory for copyright trolls in NZ? by SleepyJohn · · Score: 1

    Amusingly enough, the new law has one ironic effect. Before, infringement notices to ISPs generally got passed on to the offending user with a don't-be-bad note. The new law has a provision that the ISP has the right to charge for the time this takes them to research. In most cases this now means the ISP, upon receiving the infringement notice, turns around and invoices the complainant $25 before going any further (and as the complainants are usually mostly automated scripts, it mostly seems to end there). Ironically enough, at least in the short term, it probably means *less* punters getting infringement notices, and more costs to the "rights holders" for pursuing the process. In some ways a bit of a phyrric victory.

    Yes, I think this could well be a pyrrhic victory for the copyright trolls and extortion racketeers. Far from being a bad law this could well turn out to be a rather good one, whether intentional or not. Anything that costs these creeps money will discourage them from 'blanket bombing' everyone on the internet with threatening legal letters. Anyone with a genuine complaint will not fear a small charge for proceeding with it.

    And as far as the OP goes I would suggest hiring good people, then trusting them. A competent manager should easily be able to spot folk stepping out of line and they can be dealt with individually as necessary. It is BAD policy, period, to show your staff you don't trust them. As I understand it only P2P comes under this NZ legislation so presumably a capable admin should be able to block the necessaries without any interference in people's work or freedoms, thus showing the authorities that they have taken all reasonable precautions. All these 'blanket' regulations ever do is penalise the innocent so they get really pissed off and their work suffers, and cause just enough inconvenience to the guilty that they spend even less of their time working for you. They are an appalling way to run a business, or a country.

    1. Re:A pyrrhic victory for copyright trolls in NZ? by ehintz · · Score: 1

      Heh. Yeah, I've long been of the opinion that if you have to spend a lot of time policing your employees, your problem is your employees. You need to hire people that you don't need to babysit. If they're not meeting work expectations, stopping them from getting to Facebook only means they're gonna go stand around the water cooler and waste time there, or take the newspaper to the toilet, or whatever. People misusing the company interwebs is an HR problem which requires an HR solution, not a technical one requiring a technical solution.

      With you on the new law there. I suspect that the relatively good side of this (making life harder on the extortion/phishing expeditions) was probably incompetence on the part of the rights holders, and perhaps a little bit of creative lemonade-from-lemons by the ISP types who were able to get some input in the short period they had to do so.

      --
      ehintz
  117. The collection side... by RedPhoenix · · Score: 1

    The Snare/Epilog open source agents will get you part of the way there; they'll handle the log forwarding side for you. They're coded over the ditch in Oz.

    Kiwi syslog might be another step in the process; locally made and supported in NZ; it'll manage the collection side of things, but not the analysis.

    From there... sorry - I only have commercial stuff to suggest for the analysis side, so I'll let others bring up some options.
    [Disclaimer: I'm a snare developer, so take comments in that context]

  118. Or copyright spammers, even by SleepyJohn · · Score: 1

    It occurs to me that 'copyright spammer' is maybe a better description of these people than 'troll', as their business model is identical to that of those pond-life - send threatening letter to everyone on the planet with a computer, on the calculated basis that enough of them will be sufficiently frightened to pay up without question for the spammer to profit. I suspect a charge of $25 a pop for sending spam emails would slow that business down a bit! Any way of making that work, anyone?

  119. fuck that shit you nazi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats how long they have webpages open got to do with piracy.

  120. Trust by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 1

    Some people say it's over rated, but give it a try. It's also open source! Careful though because it can make you think about things.

  121. Astaro has most of what you wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astaro is a commercial package - but low cost - free for home use. It has most of the reporting you identified together with fairly good protocol filtering above and beyond the simple firewall.

  122. Low Tech, Amazingly Effective by lewko · · Score: 2

    Run everyone through a proxy. At the end of every week, print out the name of every user and every site they have visited. Display the printout in the lunch room.

    Benefits:
    1) Accountability. Nobody's going to visit LesbianMidgetAmputeeFisting.com if they know everyone in the office will know about it.
    2) Information Sharing: People will learn of other (hopefully work related) sites and tools, and will know with whom to discuss them.
    3) Reduced bandwidth. Nobody wants to be accused of wasting time at work, so people will naturally reduce their casual web browsing.

    Total cost of implementation: A few reams of paper and a few minutes a week.

    We tried this in an office of 50 people who were fed up with a content filtering firewall that thwarted legitimate work. First week's results were a little off-colour (we kinda forgot to remind people we were doing it) but subsequently almost every bit of web browsing was work-related, relevant and minimal. Facebook use at work all but vanished. However, staff didn't feel they were being treated like children by a machine controlling where they surfed.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    1. Re:Low Tech, Amazingly Effective by ultraata · · Score: 1

      The best idea of all the comments. Unfortunately, I guess it won't work in an office with 500+ employees.

    2. Re:Low Tech, Amazingly Effective by lewko · · Score: 1

      Why not? Each office could have its own notice-board. It would be easy enough to try for a few weeks and the cost of changing your mind would be zero.

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  123. Block/redirect http, use squid, squint and mysar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your only concern is Internet browsing, using a proxy such as squid will do. From your firewall, either block http request or redirect it to your squid proxy, it's up to you. With regards to the reporting tool that you require, check out squint - it seems it can accommodate your requirement:
    http://www.ledge.co.za/software/squint/index.php
    There is also a good MySQl based squid logger which is MySAR:
    http://www.productionmonkeys.net/guides/squid/mysar

    I am using both logging tool on my environment and they both work great.

    hth

  124. Rescue time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a cool little app called rescue time that runs in the background and reports everything I'm doing to their web server, which can then give me an idea of how much time I spent on productive programs/sites (note though that it just reports time, an employee who does 2 hours of work in the morning then slacks off until the clock says 5 might still be 4x as productive as someone who just creates work to look busy)

    It does url's and reporting really well though and does have a spy on my employees mode as long as you control the terminals, just be careful on the interpretation of the productivity stats

  125. Slashdot vs. Google by Compaqt · · Score: 2

    I've got an idea: Since the sum total of ideas expressed on Slashdot comments have probably already been expressed elsewhere, and are available on Google, it's probably superfluous to post comments on Slashdot.

    Also, since all of the articles posted on Slashdot are (obviously) available elsewhere on the Web, and hence, also via Google, it would make sense to also not post articles on /., being redundant.

    In fact, to the logical geek mind, the thing that would make the most sense is for slashdot.org to simply be turned into a DNS redirect for google.com.

    Why didn't anyone think of that before? In fact, I think CmdrTaco did indeed realize that the very existence of Slashdot is futile in the face of Google, and voluntary stepped down for that reason.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  126. I should add that ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Testra spread their evil to NZ as well by buying up things over there. The last time I dealt with their spawn over there it was a two month process to change a single MX record in DNS so that a client could reliably get their email. That's two months in almost the same timezone with multiple communications per day!

  127. Squid proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    squid proxy server with authentication can really help here. You can then pull reports of usage and track individual users usage.
    If you are using an NT domain at work squid integrates quite well with those nowadays. Webalyser is just one tool that is available to track usage.

  128. craphead boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a craphead boss at one job who spent a relentless amount of time trying to track what everyone did. Now mind you even us IT guys never really abused the net access but he was bound and determine to see every single thing we did.

    I finally got fed up with his silly antics and I would change my mac address every morning. Next I would fire up a ssh tunnel through 443 to a outside host.

    One day he asked me why I never showed up on the usage reports, I told him I have no interest in the internet so I never really use it.

  129. Record them by kangelos · · Score: 1

    Shameless plug: why not record their sessions? use https://sourceforge.net/projects/rautor triggered on application use.

  130. The lowest-cost solution isn't software based by kikito · · Score: 1

    It's called "group with other similarly affected people, and work for revoking that stupid law".

  131. snort? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.snort.org/

  132. How I solved the Global Economic Crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could hire some security guards to monitor what each employee is doing with your computers.

    One security guard per staff member sounds about right.

    Of course, you will also need security guards to monitor the security guards and made sure they are doing their jobs right....

    Shouldn't be an issue, as I believe there's a worldwide unemployment problem right now and big governments are getting bigger.
     

  133. Re:Squid is your friend. And this helps it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sarg - Squid Analysis Report Generator is a tool that allow you to view "where" your users are going to on the Internet.
    http://sarg.sourceforge.net/sarg.php

  134. Scumbag NZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck, New Zealand? Sieg heil, you nazi bastards.

  135. no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not just hire better employees so you dont even have to worry about it

  136. you are looking for "winners" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    amongst a sea of losers?

  137. Download a free analyzing tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a question I am asked weekly as an IT consultant, let me explain the fastest, most effective way to gain insight into your network- completely free.

    In order to do this efficiently, you need to focus on flow technology within your routers. Your current hardware is currently capable of this, it just needs to be turned on within the configuration. If you already have flow exporting enabled, you can now use a netflow analyzer to see everything happening on your routers and switches.

    Download a free netflow analyzer at http://www.plixer.com/products/netflow-sflow/scrutinizer-netflow-sflow.php

    Once installed you will be able to filter and report on exactly what you are looking for. I can't walk you through the product, but i'm pretty sure it comes with a free setup by their support staff.

  138. Auto Hot Key Scripts by Wingfat · · Score: 1

    I have written a few great scripts that can and will track what an employee is doing. Or a great one that tracks what Window is open on their screen and for how long, so that way you can tell if they are working and if so how long they are spending on work vs. personal web surfing. --also you can buy signal jammers on the cheap to block cell phone usage in your office, good tool to keep them on their PC and their hands off their cell phones. I just caught our CEO playing a game on his cell though.. so cant stop that, but at least they cant get out to the net. Scripts can also be set up to Kill (close) webpages that open on an end users PC.. so say you want to stop a person from going to a site that Websence thinks is okay, like www.bing.com you can make it so when they go to that site it just automaticly closes the browser. -my scripts are open source.. free for all... but updates to them cost $10 per update.

  139. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you to everyone who answered the question instead of imposing their ethical beliefs that were completely irrelevant. This has been informative!

  140. instead of looking for employee-spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you should lobby your MP (New Zealand was a democracy last time I checked) and ask them to reverse this police-state law.

  141. Screen Monitoring Software by jinvin · · Score: 1

    I hope this software could help it is a screen monitoring software that monitor which application, document, or websites is actively being used and for how long does a person spend time on that particular website. It is a good monitoring software also it is not intrusive that can invade employee privacy. This software also could help employee to stay focus and motivated in the long run at work. http://www.timedoctor.com/blog/2011/04/14/compare-screen-monitoring-software