4 ms·

I sincerely hope that Cisco keeps the OpenDNS Home free offering around, as it's by far the best filtering service for families I've used. Sign up, block inappr

by ljoshua 11y ago

I sincerely hope that Cisco keeps the OpenDNS Home free offering around, as it's by far the best filtering service for families I've used. Sign up, block inappropriate categories through the service, and point your router to the DNS IPs and you're done. (Oh, and grab the IP autoupdater.) Keeping the kids (and adults) safe is my favorite aspect of OpenDNS. From the "we just got acquired" FAQ: > The free service will continue to operate. It’s part of who we are, and Cisco loves who we are. We wouldn’t have entered into this agreement if we believed our free service would be in jeopardy. On contrary, Cisco’s commitment back to you is to maintain OpenDNS’s DNS services exactly as it is today. In their words: “This level of service for all users is a priority.”

nateabele 11y ago
> In their words: “This level of service for all users is a priority.” And were those words in a press release, or a contract? > If we believed our free service would be in jeopardy. [emphasis added] Oh look, good intentions. I'm sure everything will be fine then. </sarc> Question: if it's based on bad experience, repeated ad nauseam, is it still called cynicism?
- kyrra 11y ago
  I was part of a company purchased by Cisco 2 years ago that has an open source component (Snort[0]). Cisco is continuing to invest in the open source product since it acquired Sourcefire. The big things being Snort 3.0 [1] (rewrite to allow multi-threading inside a single process), and OpenAppId[2] (application detection using Lua). These are things they could have kept internal but they continued to invest in the open source version. I think Cisco realizes that giving some stuff away with opensource helps build confidence with the tech community, it would be stupid for them to kill off these kinds of products and services. [0] https://snort.org/ https://snort.org/ [1] https://snort.org/snort3 https://snort.org/snort3 [2] http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1354502 http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1354502
  - nateabele 11y ago
    That's promising, and I'm glad to hear it. And, while it's certainly prudent of them, they seem like an outlier in that regard. To me the discussion is more about the principle: we're relying on Cisco's (or whoever else's) benevolence (and/or competence). Without writing an essay on the stakeholder theory of value, I just want to say that it'd sure be nice if the users of a service were regarded in some way that's more formal than an FAQ & reassurances.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Curious, what are the worries you're keeping kids safe from? I've got two daughters, now 7 and 8, and since they were born they've had unmonitored, unfiltered[1] IP connectivity. My parents did the same (well, with BBSes at first). The only thing I've ever wanted to filter out is the "kids" stuff since it's often so bad (e.g., Netflix for kids has lots of dumb shit, or those Flash games my kids like so much are ... low quality.) What am I missing? (If auto updates are on, that pretty much eliminates exploits installing malware. (Assuming no one's gonna waste a 0day to install some spam/ad junk.)) 1: The only filtering is client side, an ad blocker so they don't grow up accustomed to adverts. And just for general sanity - the web's rather obnoxious otherwise.
- hga 11y ago
  Yeah, well, seeing how you turned out, that's not much of a recommendation ^_^! Seriously, you need to get back to us in a dozen, dozen and a half years, before you can speak with any authority about your approach to your kids and today's Internet.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    The comment is phrased as a question, not a recommendation. (Although I could see how a recommendation could be inferred.) What specific issues do you have with the poster's approach to his kids' internet access?
    - hga 11y ago
      No specific issues, it's not an issue I've thought about. And however the phrasing, that this is the policy he's using with his own kids has to count as something of a recommendation.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    I'm not speaking with much authority. I'm querying why people are so ... worked up? Over filtering and making sure kids are "safe". Even in the mid nineties this was a massive concern, so it's not new. I've just never found anything that scary, so I'm wondering what people are concerned about when they see 8 yr olds on the net.
windexh8er 11y ago
Cisco has a poor track record in the consumer space. While I commend them on making that statement, Cisco's MO is not free and consumer focused products. While I sincerely hope that this doesn't end up the end result I am going to likely move to other resolvers as I don't want to be part of Cisco's IP going forward... It was fun while it lasted, but personally I don't trust the path forward.
- windexh8er 11y ago
  Great that folks will downvote with no context. My personal opinion and it's a true statement historically compared to Cisco's track record. Lame.

by ljoshua 11y ago

nateabele 11y ago

> In their words: “This level of service for all users is a priority.” And were those words in a press release, or a contract? > If we believed our free service would be in jeopardy. [emphasis added] Oh look, good intentions. I'm sure everything will be fine then. </sarc> Question: if it's based on bad experience, repeated ad nauseam, is it still called cynicism?

kyrra 11y ago
I was part of a company purchased by Cisco 2 years ago that has an open source component (Snort[0]). Cisco is continuing to invest in the open source product since it acquired Sourcefire. The big things being Snort 3.0 [1] (rewrite to allow multi-threading inside a single process), and OpenAppId[2] (application detection using Lua). These are things they could have kept internal but they continued to invest in the open source version. I think Cisco realizes that giving some stuff away with opensource helps build confidence with the tech community, it would be stupid for them to kill off these kinds of products and services. [0] https://snort.org/ https://snort.org/ [1] https://snort.org/snort3 https://snort.org/snort3 [2] http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1354502 http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1354502
- nateabele 11y ago
  That's promising, and I'm glad to hear it. And, while it's certainly prudent of them, they seem like an outlier in that regard. To me the discussion is more about the principle: we're relying on Cisco's (or whoever else's) benevolence (and/or competence). Without writing an essay on the stakeholder theory of value, I just want to say that it'd sure be nice if the users of a service were regarded in some way that's more formal than an FAQ & reassurances.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Curious, what are the worries you're keeping kids safe from? I've got two daughters, now 7 and 8, and since they were born they've had unmonitored, unfiltered[1] IP connectivity. My parents did the same (well, with BBSes at first). The only thing I've ever wanted to filter out is the "kids" stuff since it's often so bad (e.g., Netflix for kids has lots of dumb shit, or those Flash games my kids like so much are ... low quality.) What am I missing? (If auto updates are on, that pretty much eliminates exploits installing malware. (Assuming no one's gonna waste a 0day to install some spam/ad junk.)) 1: The only filtering is client side, an ad blocker so they don't grow up accustomed to adverts. And just for general sanity - the web's rather obnoxious otherwise.

hga 11y ago
Yeah, well, seeing how you turned out, that's not much of a recommendation ^_^! Seriously, you need to get back to us in a dozen, dozen and a half years, before you can speak with any authority about your approach to your kids and today's Internet.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  The comment is phrased as a question, not a recommendation. (Although I could see how a recommendation could be inferred.) What specific issues do you have with the poster's approach to his kids' internet access?
  - hga 11y ago
    No specific issues, it's not an issue I've thought about. And however the phrasing, that this is the policy he's using with his own kids has to count as something of a recommendation.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  I'm not speaking with much authority. I'm querying why people are so ... worked up? Over filtering and making sure kids are "safe". Even in the mid nineties this was a massive concern, so it's not new. I've just never found anything that scary, so I'm wondering what people are concerned about when they see 8 yr olds on the net.

windexh8er 11y ago

Cisco has a poor track record in the consumer space. While I commend them on making that statement, Cisco's MO is not free and consumer focused products. While I sincerely hope that this doesn't end up the end result I am going to likely move to other resolvers as I don't want to be part of Cisco's IP going forward... It was fun while it lasted, but personally I don't trust the path forward.

windexh8er 11y ago
Great that folks will downvote with no context. My personal opinion and it's a true statement historically compared to Cisco's track record. Lame.