Am Fri, 18 Oct 2013 21:20:16 -0400 schrieb "Mike." <the.li...@mgm51.com>:
> On 10/19/2013 at 12:27 AM Stefan Wollny wrote: > > |Hi there, > |[snip] > | > |My question is on the squid-server I have running at home: What > |would make more sense - blocking facebook.com via pf.conf alike > or are > |there reasons to use squid's ACL instead? Performance? Being > |ultra-paranoid and implementing both (or even additionally the > |hosts-file-block?)? From my understanding squid should not be > able to > |block https-traffic as it is encrypted - or am I wrong here? > | > |Curious if there is a particular (Open)BSD solution or simply > how you > |'guys and gals' would do it. > ============= > > > I put privoxy between the browser and squid on my home network. > The privoxy mailing list has discussion about blocking facebook. > > Additionally, if you're running firefox, look to see if the > ghostery plug-in would work for you. > Hi Mike, good to remind me of privoxy: I had it running in the past but that particular machine went 'out of service' and was never replaced as I thought squid to be sufficient for my need. If I remember right it was due to my perception that privoxy is kind of a resource-hog... Interestingly I have ghostery added to firefox. Still with firefox 'facebook.com' was handed over to the https-connection disregarding what I have set up in /var/adsuck/hosts.small: 127.0.0.1 facebook.com 127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com But as I have pointed out already this might be because I did s.th. wrong when setting up adsuck. Thank you for pointing to those two ways to go! Have a nice Sunday! Regards, STEFAN Mit freundlichen Grüßen, STEFAN WOLLNY Regulatory Reporting Consultancy Tel.: +49 (0) 177 655 7875 Fax.: +49 (0) 3212 655 7875 Mail: ste...@wollny.de GnuPG-Key ID: 0x9C26F1D0
