Belkin router parental control feature no longer works

Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by,
I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good,
now I cant get the login screen or anything.

I click on the 'subscribe to parental control' on the router
maintenance page and it does nothing.

I search on Belkin support website and there are no links, cant find
the 'Cerebian' or 'Cereberian' or whatever company either.

Is this product now dead? If so, any recommendations for router based
filtering? I dont want to install PC based software, would rather have
it filtered by the router automagically.

btw, Belkin website search sucks, get more hits from Belkin site
starting with google search, than starting with Belkin's own search
menu.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by,
> I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good,
> now I cant get the login screen or anything.
>
> I click on the 'subscribe to parental control' on the router
> maintenance page and it does nothing.
>
> I search on Belkin support website and there are no links, cant find
> the 'Cerebian' or 'Cereberian' or whatever company either.
>
> Is this product now dead? If so, any recommendations for router based
> filtering? I dont want to install PC based software, would rather have
> it filtered by the router automagically.
>
> btw, Belkin website search sucks, get more hits from Belkin site
> starting with google search, than starting with Belkin's own search
> menu.
>
Do you use a Proxy Server ?
http://www.belkin.com/uk/support/tec...n&stamp=595A56
They also haven't removed this page from their web site.
http://www.belkin.com/support/topissues.asp
If you have used it before I wouldn't be surprised if your subscription
is due as it was only free for 6 months.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by,
> I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good,
> now I cant get the login screen or anything.

Why don't you *personally* monitor your kids web access, ie: look over their
shoulder once in a while?
If you're such a great parent, why don't you trust your kids (or your wife)
online? Haven't you taught them what's good and what's bad? You don't trust
them?
All this "parental control feature" crap is just that. Crap. If your kids
are in junior high, or high school, they *know* how to get around your
'parental control features". These controls are no substitute for actually
TALKING TO and GETTING TO KNOW your kids and WHAT THEY ARE INTO.

Maybe it doesn't work because your kids (who are undoubtably smarter than
you) have hacked it!

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <dmbd3b$8jo$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:36:20 -0500,
"dejablues" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>> Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by,
>> I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good,
>> now I cant get the login screen or anything.
>
>Why don't you *personally* monitor your kids web access, ie: look over their
>shoulder once in a while?

Good suggestion, but it takes much more than that.

>If you're such a great parent, why don't you trust your kids (or your wife)
>online?

Because they aren't yet mature.

>Haven't you taught them what's good and what's bad?

Of course.

>You don't trust
>them?

Not entirely.

>All this "parental control feature" crap is just that. Crap.

I respectfully disagree.

>If your kids
>are in junior high, or high school, they *know* how to get around your
>'parental control features".

Not here.

>These controls are no substitute for actually
>TALKING TO and GETTING TO KNOW your kids and WHAT THEY ARE INTO.

Been there; done that; but it takes much more than that.

>Maybe it doesn't work because your kids (who are undoubtably smarter than
>you) have hacked it!

Maybe you're overly simplistic and rude.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In comp.security.firewalls John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <dmbd3b$8jo$(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:36:20 -0500,
> "dejablues" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>>> Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by,
>>> I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good,
>>> now I cant get the login screen or anything.
>>
>>Why don't you *personally* monitor your kids web access, ie: look over their
>>shoulder once in a while?
>
> Good suggestion, but it takes much more than that.

>>You don't trust
>>them?
>
> Not entirely.
>
>>All this "parental control feature" crap is just that. Crap.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
>>If your kids
>>are in junior high, or high school, they *know* how to get around your
>>'parental control features".
>
> Not here.

>>Maybe it doesn't work because your kids (who are undoubtably smarter than
>>you) have hacked it!
>
> Maybe you're overly simplistic and rude.

While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
- or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
www.virgin.com?)

It's a question that comes up often, and, if you had actually searched
the archives, you would have known that the response you received is
rather typical of these questions in this group.

There are a few points:
+ technically, it doesn't work (well enough). It's far too
difficult to restrain access by 100%. E-mail filters are far more
sophisticated, usually, because there's that much more demand - and even
those don't come anywhere near to 100% (actually, you can get pretty
close, but that requires using a lot of technologies not present in web
filtering).
+ false negatives defeat the whole purpose, after all, a couple
of pr0n sites is enough.
+ false positives are annoying, and will require you to
reconfigure the router often, if it allows whitelists at all (I assume
it does, though)
+ circumventing such a device is usually very possible
+ the premise is flawed - kids will see equally bad stuff on
television, when visiting friends, and so on. And the forbidden fruit is
always the most attractive.

And probably a couple more; all in all, it's quite likely that you will
not receive any helpful responses at all (of course, the fact that very
few people ever used such a feature makes it less likely that people
will know the answer, anyway - I, personally, don't have half a clue for
example). Try the manual.

Joachim

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:43898715$0$69024$(E-Mail Removed)...
> While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
> it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
> - or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
> quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
> want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
> www.virgin.com?)


Sorry, I was reading this from the parenting group it was cross-posted to. I
actually have no interest in filtering or blocking anything.

In article <43898715$0$69024$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
> it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
> - or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
> quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
> want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
> www.virgin.com?)

I disagree, a good content filter works fine, but the cheap SOHO units
don't have good content filters. I have a WatchGuard Firebox II with a
content database filter running on a server, this combination is setup
to block 12 of 14 categories of content from all normal users in the
network. It's worked fine for years.

The real question is not do you trust your kids, did you teach them well
enough, etc.. and it has nothing to do with what they are "in to", it's
about knowing what you kids WILL DO when you're not around, knowing
about what they do when they think they can get away with something,
etc... I don't want to allow most of the CRAP into my home, that's my
choice, not my kids choice, as I'm the adult, owner, network owner, I
get to make the rules and see that they are followed.

I'm sure that some little kid (or a Democrat) will object, but being a
parent takes more than a village, it takes an involved parent that isn't
always PC and doesn't always do what the PC types would want.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

"dejablues" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dmbd3b$8jo$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>> Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by,
>> I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good,
>> now I cant get the login screen or anything.
>
> Why don't you *personally* monitor your kids web access, ie: look over
> their
> shoulder once in a while?
> If you're such a great parent, why don't you trust your kids (or your
> wife)
> online? Haven't you taught them what's good and what's bad? You don't
> trust
> them?
> All this "parental control feature" crap is just that. Crap. If your kids
> are in junior high, or high school, they *know* how to get around your
> 'parental control features". These controls are no substitute for
> actually
> TALKING TO and GETTING TO KNOW your kids and WHAT THEY ARE INTO.
>
> Maybe it doesn't work because your kids (who are undoubtably smarter than
> you) have hacked it!

1. Monitoring one's kids every minute they're on the Internet isn't
feasible for everybody.
2. Search results often yield unintended results even for well-intentioned
and disciplined kids.
3. Properly implemented parental controls on a capable edge device cannot
be bypassed.
4. Blocking a 10 year old from hardcore porn andd racist hate is not about
trust. There are some things they shouldn't see until they have matured
enough to make proper judgements about it. It's a parent's job to decide
what that is. Parental blocks on the Internet are simply a tool to employ to
that end.
5. None of this is intended as a *subsititue* for talking to and getting to
know your kids and what they are into. If you think it is, you have a very
narrow minded view.

The devices that I deal with, when properly configured, can't be "gotten
around", no matter what your skillset, without using an entirely separate
Internet feed of some sort.

My trustworthy, informed kids wouldn't try though. Because they understand
what the controls are, that they're for their own protection. They feel
free to surf around without being watched extremely closely, because they're
safe. Plus, they know that I can view full logs of where they've been,
should I feel like a spot check-up.

Just because *you* can't figure out how to sensibly deploy parental
controls, doesn't mean nobody else can.

-Russ.

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <43898715$0$69024$(E-Mail Removed)> on 27 Nov 2005 10:14:45 GMT,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
>it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
>- or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
>quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
>want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
>www.virgin.com?)

Whether that is the "general consensus here" or not (which isn't something
that matters to me), my own real world experience (based on SonicWALL) is that
it can work well, blocking most of the objectional material with relatively
little collateral damage. As in most things, different approaches work
differently, so you can't really generalize. Of course it's never perfect --
few things are -- but it can nonetheless be valuable.

>It's a question that comes up often, and, if you had actually searched
>the archives, you would have known that the response you received is
>rather typical of these questions in this group.

Your insinuation is uncalled for. I've done my homework.

>There are a few points:
> + technically, it doesn't work (well enough). It's far too
>difficult to restrain access by 100%. E-mail filters are far more
>sophisticated, usually, because there's that much more demand - and even
>those don't come anywhere near to 100% (actually, you can get pretty
>close, but that requires using a lot of technologies not present in web
>filtering).

My own real world experience is that it can be made to work well enough to be
useful.

> + false negatives defeat the whole purpose, after all, a couple
>of pr0n sites is enough.

I disagree. That's like saying it's pointless to lock your door because some
thieves will break in anyway.

> + false positives are annoying, and will require you to
>reconfigure the router often, if it allows whitelists at all (I assume
>it does, though)

That's just not been a problem here (and yes, the router does support
whitelists, as well as blacklists for that matter).

> + circumventing such a device is usually very possible

Nope -- secured physically and password protected.

> + the premise is flawed - kids will see equally bad stuff on
>television, when visiting friends, and so on. And the forbidden fruit is
>always the most attractive.

Again, I disagree. That's like saying spam filtering is pointless because
some will always get through. It's still worthwhile to block most of the bad
stuff even though some may still get through.

>And probably a couple more; all in all, it's quite likely that you will
>not receive any helpful responses at all

Sad that so many people would let their personal biases get in the way of
being helpful.

>(of course, the fact that very
>few people ever used such a feature makes it less likely that people
>will know the answer, anyway - I, personally, don't have half a clue for
>example). Try the manual.

You're confusing me with the OP -- I'm not having any problems at all.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 27 Nov 2005 10:14:45 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
>it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
>- or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
>quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
>want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
>www.virgin.com?)

Yep. I know the problem. My domain is LearnByDestroying.com which I
thought would not attract any undue attention. However, I was banned
by some content filters as an ultraviolence site due to the term
"destroying" in the URL.

It also causes some undue problems with online purchases, where the
purchase URL tends to be rather long and include the kitchen sink. One
of my clever customers setup an email address something like
(E-Mail Removed) to remain anonymous. However, xxx is deemed a sex
site. He goes to make his purchase, but because (E-Mail Removed) is in
the ultra long URL his browser is sending, the gets a blocked site
message. I had the same think happen when I added my last name into
the block list just to see what happened. Nothing happened until I
tried to make an online purchase.

Note that there is a distinction between content filters and URL
blockers. Content filters are installed on the computah and scan both
the URL and the words on the web page. URL blockers just look at the
requested URL for key words and are usually imbedded in the router
firmware.

Of course, the federal government is here to protect us from ourselves
with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA or CHIPA).
http://www.cdt.org/speech/cipa/
making it a requirement for libraries that receive federal money to
install content filtering. It is my understanding that the local
libraries consider it a waste of time and effort.

I've been installing and repairing computah systems since 1983 and
have seen very few applications of content filters and URL blocks that
were successfully used for more than a few weeks.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558