From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 16:55:41 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD291065672 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:55:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C7B8FC13 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:55:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 14257 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2008 16:55:05 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 26 Nov 2008 16:55:05 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id A5B135087F; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:55:02 -0500 (EST) To: eculp@casasponti.net References: <492D51CB.9000201@a1poweruser.com> <20081126081306.17qwm4xcthtwcgw0o@intranet.casasponti.net> <20081126102444.17qwm4xcthvk4kkww@intranet.casasponti.net> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:55:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081126102444.17qwm4xcthvk4kkww@intranet.casasponti.net> (eculp@casasponti.net's message of "Wed\, 26 Nov 2008 10\:24\:44 -0600") Message-ID: <4463ma2zrt.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Andrew Gould , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: firewall rules for bitlord, yahoo, limewire X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:55:41 -0000 eculp@casasponti.net writes: > Andrew Gould escribi=F3: > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:13 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> Hmmm. Isn't life interesting. I would like to know how to block them = and >>> others without causing strange secondary problems. >>> >>> Actually a default pf configuration will let them pass unless I'm >>> forgetting something important. >>> >>> ed >>> >> >> I share your pain, Ed. I've had to perform 3 complete re-installations = of >> computers in my household in the last year. Each time, I found a >> ".limewire" file in a user's application folder. The boys are now banned >> from my wife's computer. When the last culprit get's his computer back,= he >> will find it running an operating system that is not supported by Limewi= re. >> The next time, he'll get it back without a network card. >> >> Andrew > > :) I understand. Hopefully someone has a reasonably efficient pf or > ipfw based solution. If it cuts some of the microsoft traffic that I > am seeing much more of recently, I won't complain either. I have tried > to control them by ip's and but domain names with limited success. > Too many windows boxes at the office. Regardless of what you do to "control" the unwanted applications, I'd monitoring the traffic on the network as well. I don't put many limits on what my kid can do on the network, but he knows I'm looking over his shoulder. Virtually speaking. --=20 Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/