Latest Version?

Forum for support for the PureSight for WinGate content filtering plugin

Moderator: Qbik Staff

Latest Version?

Postby Hopkinsmailing » Aug 24 04 7:03 am

The icognito PureSight website is showing version 4.something. We're showing 1.1 on our system. Are we running the latest version? The reason I ask is because the Wall Street Journal had an article on filters and they tested images.google.com with the four letter alternative to the word breasts and only two of the tests caught the rather explicit pictures that show up on the screen. PureSight does not catch these either.

Rob H
Hopkinsmailing
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Jan 24 04 4:21 am

Postby Pascal » Aug 24 04 1:38 pm

The version number shown there is for the Qbik plugin for PureSight. The actual iCognito engine number will not be shown in the UI. I can't see a way to tell the version number of the installed iCognito modules - but I believe it won't be version 4 yet.
Pascal

Qbik New Zealand
pascalv@qbik.com
http://www.qbik.com
Pascal
Qbik Staff
 
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sep 08 03 8:19 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Postby Hopkinsmailing » Aug 25 04 3:27 am

Can anyone think of a way to block these images. I banned images.google.com but AltaVista also has image files as well as I'm sure others. I can't just block images because we're in the grphic art business and need to search for photos like Corbis has. I can't believe the blatant ease in which Google serves up this stuff. There's no point in even bothering to filter porn sites when the earch engines have it all. Is this an issue I should address with icognito?

Rob H
Hopkinsmailing
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Jan 24 04 4:21 am

Postby Pascal » Aug 25 04 10:43 am

An image itself is very very difficult to block. The name could be completely innocent - images.google.com/a001.jpg for example (Fictional URL). There is no real way that a content filter can know that that image is objectionable.

Some filters do have image processing in them - but that is a fairly expensive analysis algorithm and I know that PureSight does not support that. Other filters have people looking at the images and putting them in lists - which again, is not ideal.

Your best bet would probably be to block these images on a case-by-case basis.
Pascal

Qbik New Zealand
pascalv@qbik.com
http://www.qbik.com
Pascal
Qbik Staff
 
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sep 08 03 8:19 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Postby Hopkinsmailing » Aug 26 04 6:07 am

This is a dialogue I had with a PureSight technical support member. Something is definately out of sorts. Without changing any settings the plug-in blocked the page, based on percentage of content, on one try and then allowed the content on another try with the exact same keywords.

Rob H

*** Dialogue with PureSight ***

Yael,

Thank you again for getting back to me. This is getting more interesting and I think I need to redirect this query to the Wingate folks. I purposely removed images.google.com from the ban list and cleared my IE cache. Went back to google and typed in boobs. I got a screen full of them. Reread your message to make sure I followed everything and I had. Tried boobs again and this time I got:

PureSight for WinGate: Access denied


PureSight for WinGate has determined that the requested URL (http://images.google.com/images) is at least 27 % likely to contain prohibited content.

The content has been blocked because it is of a sexual nature.

If you have any queries with regards to this, please contact your system administrator. http://www.wingate.com

This is what I'm expecting. So one time it works and another time it doesn't. All port 80 traffic is suppose to be going into the proxy server but now I'm starting to wonder if I got a hole somewhere. Anyhow, thanks again for your time. It's very refreshing to find a company with people willing to listen and help.

Robert Hopkins
Hopkins Mailing Services, Inc.
758 W. Racquet Club Dr.
Addison, IL 60101-4318
(630)628-0088 Ext. 11


-----Original Message-----
From: PureSight Support [mailto:puresightsupport@puresight.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:17 AM
To: Rob Hopkins; PureSight Support
Subject: RE: Technical Support


Hello Rob,

We checked some offensive words in Google's image search, such as "boobs", "tits" and "girls", and we were blocked.
We suggest you do the following to make sure Google's image search result pages are banned:

1. When entering the URL to be blocked, write it without the "http://", to make sure you block the entire domain and not just the URL.
Check "consider entire domain" If your PureSight version has this option.
2. It is recommended to clear your cache after adding URLs to your "block" list, so they will be effectively blocked.
To do so, go to Internet Explorer and open the Tools -> Internet Options. On the General tab, click on the Delete Files button that is related to Temporary Internet files.
3. Change you Google image search settings to "Do not filter my search results".
To do so, go to www.google.com -> Preferences -> SafeSearch Filtering -> Check "Do not filter my search results".

Please let us know how this works.

Best regards,

Yael Cahane
PureSight Support Team
http://www.puresight.com
support@puresight.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hopkins [mailto:rob@hopkinsmailing.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 6:45 PM
To: PureSight Support
Subject: RE: Technical Support

Thank you for the fast reply. We do have this blocked but I guess my point is that there is a huge whole somewhere. As a test I installed CyberPatrol on my workstation and it somehow blocks these images. I tried adding the offensive word only to the URL ban list but apparently after the "http://image.google.com/" the fact that the search word is farther down doesn't trigger the ban routine. In many cases the search work is actually part of the filename but still gets through. I'm not trying to pick on anyone but rather am offering a challenge to your programming staff. The content on google makes the entire concept of blocking porn worthless. I didn't even know this was on there until I read the article. Apparently other search engines carry this stuff too.


Thank you again for your time.

Robert Hopkins
Hopkins Mailing Services, Inc.
758 W. Racquet Club Dr.
Addison, IL 60101-4318
(630)628-0088 Ext. 11


-----Original Message-----
From: PureSight Support [mailto:puresightsupport@puresight.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:05 AM
To: rob@hopkinsmailing.com; PureSight Support
Subject: RE: Technical Support


Hello Robert,

PureSight does not analyze images. Our technology reads and analyzes the content of the page and does not recognize images (pornography or others).
Thus Google search may turn out images that are not proper to view or at least according to the filtering settings you have.
You may solve this problem by adding "images.google.com" to your blocked list or by changing Google's SafeSearch settings to Moderate or Strict.

Thank you for choosing PureSight as your content filtering solution.
Please don't hesitate to contact us again.

Best regards,

Yael Cahane
PureSight Support Team
www.puresight.com
support@puresight.com

-----Original Message-----
From: rob@hopkinsmailing.com [mailto:rob@hopkinsmailing.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:54 PM
To: PureSight Support
Subject: Technical Support

First Name: Robert

Last Name: Hopkins

Company: Hopkins Mailing Services, Inc.

Email: rob@hopkinsmailing.com

Product: PureSight

Version: PureSight 4.0

Platform: Windows

Operating System: Win2000

Description of the problem: Hello,

I run PureSight as a plugin for a product called Wingate. In a recent Wall Street Journal review on web filters the author mentioned that one of his tests was to type in the four-letter word for breasts into the images.google.com search box. He wasn't testing Puresight but we tried it and I couldn't believe the screen that came up. I wasn't even aware that Google contained this content. My question is: Is this blockable by PureSight? The issue of blocking porn sites becomes irrelevant when the major search engines contain enough explicit images on there own.

Thank you for your time.

Rob Hopkins


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Hopkinsmailing
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Jan 24 04 4:21 am


Return to PureSight for WinGate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests