# How do I disable Blue Coat K9 Web Protection?



## Cloudchaser (Jun 23, 2009)

I need to know how to disable Blue Coat K9 Web Protection. It's on a computer that used to be for public use but is no longer for pubic use. The problem is that (bleep) dog does its job too well. I can't even go to sites like furaffinity.net, liveleak.com and collegehumor.com and view material that I would view with my Mother standing next to me because of adult material elsewhere on those sites. It's like/makes as much sense as not letting someone go into a Books-A-Million and view material that a Baptist preacher wouldn't object to because of the adult material elsewhere in the store.

The problem is disabling Blue Coat K9 Web Protection. Start/Run/msconfig/startup tab/uncheck Blue Coat K9 Web Protection does not work. Then I can't access anything at all because "Blue Coat K9 Web Protection is not responding."

I'm afraid to try uninstalling for two reasons.

One, that would probably be noticed (though I doubt that anyone has been checking K9's what sites have been visited log to see if employees have been surfing the 'net or myself and my co-workers would have been busted a long time ago)

Two, I fear the same thing will happen that happens with Start/Run/msconfig... and I'll be in trouble for screwing up internet access on that computer.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 23, 2009)

It sounds like this computer isn't yours and it belongs to your employer.

If that's the case, you shouldn't be disableing things on it in the first place.


----------



## Torinir (Jun 23, 2009)

Ashley's right. Your employer would have a reason to fire you if you were to tamper with their security applications.


----------



## Shino (Jun 23, 2009)

Yeah, this is less a "how" and more of a "should I?". If it's not your own personal computer on your own personal internet connection, don't do it. Period.
If it is your own machine now, no strings attached, wipe it and give yourself a fresh install. Used computers should never change hands without a full cleanup first.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jun 23, 2009)

I agree - if this is not your system, then you shouldn't tinker with the security settings (unless you're the one employee who's actually in charge of such things).  If you're _really_ that determined to have access to such things, then boot the system up on a LiveCD and use the Internet via that method, which does not alter the configuration of the box.  Be aware, however, that if use of the Internet is still subject to strict company policy, that you can still get in trouble for where you go.  There will be no log of it on that computer, but there may be one at the routing core and/or IDP system.



			
				Cloudchaser said:
			
		

> I can't even go to sites like furaffinity.net ... and view material that I would view with my Mother standing next to me because of adult material elsewhere on those sites



Riiiight... I'd say FA's about 90% adult once you turn off the filter.


----------



## Irreverent (Jun 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> If you're _really_ that determined to have access to such things, then boot the system up on a LiveCD and use the Internet via that method, which does not alter the configuration of the box.  Be aware, however, that if use of the Internet is still subject to strict company policy, that you can still get in trouble for where you go.  There will be no log of it on that computer, but there may be one at the routing core and/or IDP system.



Toeclaws makes a very good point.  Many corporate networks are now using transparent, in-line, content filtering.  If you defeat the workstation net-nanny, you might be caught by the inline appliance.  And most of the appliances use DPI and are aware of the Net's million odd proxy servers and will prevent you from using them.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 23, 2009)

If it's your personal system: Format that fucker. Security or not, you don't know who's used it or what other nasties have been installed on it.

If it's your employer's system: Don't. There may be upstream devices that will catch and/or block you anyway.

And the last option that people often forget about...

If it's a corporate laptop you'd like to take home and use for personal stuff: Don't touch the hard corporate hard drive. Invest in a second internal hard drive, install your own OS on that drive and switch between the two. (If you're not that technically inclined, simply use a Linux Live CD, as has been previously suggested.)


----------



## Carenath (Jun 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Be aware, however, that if use of the Internet is still subject to strict company policy, that you can still get in trouble for where you go.  There will be no log of it on that computer, but there may be one at the routing core and/or IDP system.
> 
> Riiiight... I'd say FA's about 90% adult once you turn off the filter.


This being somewhat less likely if the company is using locally installed software like that. They would be more likely to use Websense.. or that bastard '8e6' appliance in lieu of a local application.



Irreverent said:


> Toeclaws makes a very good point.  Many corporate networks are now using transparent, in-line, content filtering.  If you defeat the workstation net-nanny, you might be caught by the inline appliance.  And most of the appliances use DPI and are aware of the Net's million odd proxy servers and will prevent you from using them.


Thankfully there are always ways around these.. and DPI should be illegal.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Thankfully there are always ways around these.. and DPI should be illegal.


 
I don't have a problem with that kind of monitoring.  You're on the company hardware and you're on the company dollar, so they have a right to monitor what you're using the internet for to ensure you arn't just screwing around while you're supposed to be working.


----------



## Carenath (Jun 23, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I don't have a problem with that kind of monitoring.  You're on the company hardware and you're on the company dollar, so they have a right to monitor what you're using the internet for to ensure you arn't just screwing around while you're supposed to be working.


A corporate environment is one thing... I have issues with them being used in places and for purposes that are IMO highly inappropriate.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 23, 2009)

I just noticed this...



ToeClaws said:


> Riiiight... I'd say FA's about 90% adult once you turn off the filter.


This is a demonstrably false statement.


```
+--------+----------+
| rating | COUNT(*) |
+--------+----------+
|      0 |  1388384 |
|      1 |   251272 |
|      2 |   222542 |
+--------+----------+
3 rows in set (2.42 sec)
```
(0=General, 1=Mature, 2=Adult)


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 23, 2009)

Shino said:


> Used computers should never change hands without a full cleanup first.



True, but they do anyway.



net-cat said:


> If it's your personal system: Format that fucker. Security or not, you don't know who's used it or what other nasties have been installed on it.



This just barely touches on why computers should never change owners without a thorough cleanup first.



net-cat said:


> If it's your employer's system: Don't. There may be upstream devices that will catch and/or block you anyway.



And you could only _hope_ for a reprimand, depending on who you work for, if you're caught trying to get around it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> A corporate environment is one thing... I have issues with them being used in places and for purposes that are IMO highly inappropriate.


 
Such places as?


----------



## Irreverent (Jun 23, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Such places as?



Autralia's core network comes to mind.....joining the ranks of China, North Korea and most countries that end in -stan  :evil:


----------



## Carenath (Jun 24, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Such places as?


Colleges... Internet Service Providers... 



Irreverent said:


> Autralia's core network comes to mind.....joining the ranks of China, North Korea and most countries that end in -stan  :evil:


And in the case of DPI... Bell Canada... Rogers... Shaw Cable...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 24, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Autralia's core network comes to mind.....joining the ranks of China, North Korea and most countries that end in -stan :evil:


 
Australia's internet filtering is utterly minimal and pretty unconsiequential.  I also think China and North Korea might have bigger issues than internet filtering to be concerned about.  Especially North Korea, where in everywhere but the capital, there's no 24/hr electrical power.



Carenath said:


> Colleges... Internet Service Providers...
> 
> 
> And in the case of DPI... Bell Canada... Rogers... Shaw Cable...


 
Most colleges are only interested in blocking out P2P services that consume signifigant internet resources.  I've never really heard of much else being blocked from a university based ISP.

As for Deep Packet Inspection on Bell Canada, Rogers and Shaw, it's just P2P throteling.  It also doesn't seem to do anything or at least make a signifigant change.  I'm on Rogers and I download from bittorrent using Azureus and I can get my stuff at reasoanble speeds.  If something has a lot of seeds even 200KB/s-500KB/s.  There's no practical effect, at least that I've noticed.  Hell I download episodes of Mythbusters at like 700KB/s


----------



## Irreverent (Jun 24, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Australia's internet filtering is utterly minimal and pretty unconsiequential.



To-day.  Maybe not tomorrow.



> As for Deep Packet Inspection on Bell Canada, Rogers and Shaw, it's just P2P throteling.



Again, that is to-day.  DPI can be anything I *(or marketing) want it to be, in about six mouse clicks. :evil: All it takes is an executive decision and the implementation is propagated very quickly.  

* 'course I'd rather route all of Pakistan's BGP AS into rabble.ca first.


----------



## Shino (Jun 24, 2009)

Back when I helped out in my HS's admin room, (back in the day when we were given a partial T1 for *only* 1.5K/mo in exchange for being the ISP's guinea pig. Uh, where was I?)
we got an original iPrism installed. Not only did it hueristically block content, but it automatically messaged me when someone failed to override it. 
The first couple of times it happened, I'd simply walk down the hall to the library or compy labs, creep up behind them, and say "What'ca doing?" really loudly. Watching the entire room turn and stare at the person with "SITE BLOCKED" on their screen was always really funny.

Between the iPrism and and the FoolProof software installed on all the Win'98 compys, porn in class quickly stopped being a problem. That, and our bandwidth usage dropped dramatically...


----------



## Carenath (Jun 24, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> To-day.  Maybe not tomorrow.
> 
> Again, that is to-day.  DPI can be anything I *(or marketing) want it to be, in about six mouse clicks. :evil: All it takes is an executive decision and the implementation is propagated very quickly.


And the UK started it... with the IWF.. self-proclaimed moral guardians of the UK's internet.. its mandate.. to allegedly only list child-porn sites to be blocked by participating ISPs... who return fake 404 errors and cause problems by transparently rerouting some traffic through proxies.. a factor which can cause havoc for site admins.

The question is.. what is to stop the UK from doing what Australia proposed.. only in secret... add a bunch of other sites to the list without telling anyone.. Slippery slope indeed. In fact.. Australia's blacklist included a number of sites that were unrelated to pornography at all.. including one belonging to a Queensland based Dentist.

Also... DPI can be bypassed if you know what you are doing.. and the more widespread this kind of technology becomes.. the more people will learn to override it.. and not just those with technicall skills or good friends.



Shino said:


> Back when I helped out in my HS's admin room, (back in the day when we were given a partial T1 for *only* 1.5K/mo in exchange for being the ISP's guinea pig. Uh, where was I?)
> we got an original iPrism installed. Not only did it hueristically block content, but it automatically messaged me when someone failed to override it.
> The first couple of times it happened, I'd simply walk down the hall to the library or compy labs, creep up behind them, and say "What'ca doing?" really loudly. Watching the entire room turn and stare at the person with "SITE BLOCKED" on their screen was always really funny.
> 
> Between the iPrism and and the FoolProof software installed on all the Win'98 compys, porn in class quickly stopped being a problem. That, and our bandwidth usage dropped dramatically...


I ended up doing much the same thing, but not in any official capacity... I just happened to be very good friends with the admins, and they trusted me. I used to have fun parsing the logs from the proxy and seeing what sites people were looking up.. as well as being a BOFH and blocking flash-game sites that the first-years liked using so they wouldnt hog the computers and I could at least get on one every day... (I had no internet access at home).


----------



## jayhusky (Jun 25, 2009)

If you dont have admin rights to the blue coat panel you can do the following (Provided you dont have any corporate filtering involved)

CTRL + ALT + DEL  find the process and stop it.

(If you have a corporate filtering software involved you'll probably see there process in the list aswell, (You may have to "Show all process from all users"))


----------



## Lobar (Jun 25, 2009)

net-cat said:


> I just noticed this...
> 
> This is a demonstrably false statement.
> 
> ...



Can you do one with pageviews? >.>


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 25, 2009)

Lobar said:


> Can you do one with pageviews? >.>


 
No, that'd probably invalidate his own point.


----------



## Armaetus (Jun 25, 2009)

Browse from home, *NOT* work. Is browsing porn worth losing a job over?


----------



## net-cat (Jun 25, 2009)

Lobar said:


> Can you do one with pageviews? >.>




```
+--------+-------------+-----------+---------------------------+
| Rating | Submissions | Views     | AverageViewsPerSubmission |
+--------+-------------+-----------+---------------------------+
|      0 |     1393235 |  95131713 |                   68.2812 |
|      1 |      252121 | 105985303 |                  420.3748 |
|      2 |      223255 |  40721056 |                  182.3971 |
+--------+-------------+-----------+---------------------------+
3 rows in set (18.36 sec)
```



AshleyAshes said:


> No, that'd probably invalidate his own point.


No, it wouldn't. Viewing habits do not change the fact that 90% of the submissions are _not_ adult or even adult+mature, as you previously stated.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 25, 2009)

net-cat said:


> No, it wouldn't. Viewing habits do not change the fact that 90% of the submissions are _not_ adult or even adult+mature, as you previously stated.


 
I think it does invalidate it.

It basicly means 'FurAffinity is only 10% adult works and another 90% of non-adult works that no one gives a shit about.'


----------



## net-cat (Jun 25, 2009)

I'd argue the point that a hundred million views is hardly "nobody," but you've clearly already made up your mind. Therefore I see no purpose in continuing this discussion with you.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 25, 2009)

net-cat said:


> but you've clearly already made up your mind.


As you have yours.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 25, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> As you have yours.


About what, precisely?


----------



## Pi (Jun 25, 2009)

this thread


----------



## Shino (Jun 25, 2009)

*Watches the thread jump the tracks and make a beautiful fireball*

Anywho, on topic: OP, can you give us some more info? Is this your machine, or a company PC?


----------

