I'm using a physical Stormshield Firewall to control connections of a private companies. There are rules to block some websites, like video games websites, Facebook, etc.

However, these websites can still be accessed. For this, you search the website on Google, right click-it and open the cached version of it, which bypass my restrictions.

Any idea about how to deal with this?

  • 1
    Sounds like a very good way to lose talented employees. Don't forget to glue any USB/Firewire ports as well, and make sure your hardware doesn't have Wi-Fi or other wireless capabilities. Also, some HDMI ports can carry Ethernet as well. Otherwise they'll be able to tether to their own mobile connection. You can also do software modem over audio jacks.
    – Lie Ryan
    Dec 17 '17 at 23:23
  • People will always find a way to bypass censorship. If Google cache is blocked, they can use an obscure CGI proxy which is unlikely to be blocked. They can use Google Translate (which acts like a proxy). They can use various archival websites. Hell, they can even browse the web through Microsoft Word if they want to badly enough.
    – forest
    Dec 18 '17 at 1:14

You can block access to "http://webcache.googleusercontent.com".

Although you have to ask yourself why you are blocking access to these sites? The cached version will not allow users to log in or navigate to new pages - it is effectively read only access.

In most cases where a block list is the preferred approach (as opposed to a system that blocks every domain that isn't white listed) read only access is fine.

  • If he wants to prevent people from reading video game reviews (or whatever) at work, he must block read only access to do so. Hell, most webgames you can play on cached webpages. Dec 14 '17 at 15:24
  • @Adonalsium - sure. But he doesn't mention reviews specifically. As for webgames yes for many you can. But for anything complex its going to fail.
    – Hector
    Dec 14 '17 at 15:28
  • I think it's reasonable to assume that the poster wants to block video game reviews when he states he's working for a private company and explicitly mentions video game websites... I don't know why I'm really arguing about this. This is pure pedantry. Dec 14 '17 at 15:44
  • @Adonalsium - You're speculating. He could mean all manner of things from in browser games through to anything even game related. You can never hope to block every mirror. If you want that level of control move to a whitelist based system...
    – Hector
    Dec 14 '17 at 15:54
  • 1
    @BR.Hamza - OT but for what its worth where I work we leave it enabled on a trust principle. By allowing the web cache it saves a lot of support requests from users for bypass codes to view a single article. If they were seen abusing it we could always discipline them. IMAO you pay someone to do a job. Whether they waste time is irrelevant - either the work they do do is worth what you pay them or its not.
    – Hector
    Dec 14 '17 at 16:41

If google web cache is the only problem, could you simply parse the URL for webcache.googleusercontent.com, and block the request if the q parameter contains the name of a blocked site?

This way you don't have to block the google cache completely, if it is necessary for the company.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.