I've been asked to verify whether it's possible to control internet access
with XP (Pro)'s built-in tools. Ultimately, all I need to be able to do is
completely block internet access during certain hours for a certain XP user
account--nothing fancier.

The router's firmware (a D-Link DI-624) doesn't allow this sort of
granularity. It's imperative that only specific XP user accounts have their
internet access disabled--not the entire machine, and the user should still
be able to log into the account itself...just no internet.

Thoughts?

(this is a home machine--and it's not on a domain)

"Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:uljM%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've been asked to verify whether it's possible to control internet access with XP
> (Pro)'s built-in tools. Ultimately, all I need to be able to do is completely
> block internet access during certain hours for a certain XP user account--nothing
> fancier.
>
> The router's firmware (a D-Link DI-624) doesn't allow this sort of granularity.
> It's imperative that only specific XP user accounts have their internet access
> disabled--not the entire machine, and the user should still be able to log into the
> account itself...just no internet.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> (this is a home machine--and it's not on a domain)

According to the documentation for the model you provided it will do what you want
by Filter or Firewall rules.


--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

>> The router's firmware (a D-Link DI-624) doesn't allow this sort of
>> granularity. It's imperative that only specific XP user accounts have
>> their internet access disabled--not the entire machine, and the user
>> should still be able to log into the account itself...just no internet.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> (this is a home machine--and it's not on a domain)
>
> According to the documentation for the model you provided it will do what
> you want by Filter or Firewall rules.

I haven't checked the router's firmware in a while (it's not mine), but as
far as I can remember the filters/rules it lets you define will let you
block a *PC*--not an individual *Windows account*...eg, these folks need to
keep their kid from using the internet, while they need to use the same PC
and surf wherever they want. Which would make sense if that's the case, as
a router has no concept of a "Windows user". That's why I'm looking at
Windows settings rather than the router itself.

"Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:O0L$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> The router's firmware (a D-Link DI-624) doesn't allow this sort of granularity.
>>> It's imperative that only specific XP user accounts have their internet access
>>> disabled--not the entire machine, and the user should still be able to log into
>>> the account itself...just no internet.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> (this is a home machine--and it's not on a domain)
>>
>> According to the documentation for the model you provided it will do what you
>> want by Filter or Firewall rules.
>
> I haven't checked the router's firmware in a while (it's not mine), but as far as I
> can remember the filters/rules it lets you define will let you block a *PC*--not an
> individual *Windows account*...eg, these folks need to keep their kid from using
> the internet, while they need to use the same PC and surf wherever they want.
> Which would make sense if that's the case, as a router has no concept of a "Windows
> user". That's why I'm looking at Windows settings rather than the router itself.

The Filters block by IP(s) on a schedule, URL, MAC or Domain.
The Firewall will Allow/Deny by Source/Destination, IP Range, Protocol and Port Range
on a schedule.

ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/di624_re...manual_106.zip


--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

> The Filters block by IP(s) on a schedule, URL, MAC or Domain.
> The Firewall will Allow/Deny by Source/Destination, IP Range, Protocol and
> Port Range on a schedule.

This pretty much confirms what I was saying. There is only one PC in that
household. The filtering needs to be done with respect to the Windows user.

>> The Filters block by IP(s) on a schedule, URL, MAC or Domain.
>> The Firewall will Allow/Deny by Source/Destination, IP Range, Protocol
>> and Port Range on a schedule.
>
> This pretty much confirms what I was saying. There is only one PC in that
> household. The filtering needs to be done with respect to the Windows
> user.

Nobody, huh?

The folks who are trying to control this are now telling it'd be perfectly
acceptable if this one user has his internet access blocked entirely. Other
accounts must remain untouched however.

I suppose removing that user's access to Internet Explorer would do it--but
obviously, just deleting any shortcut pointing to iexplore.exe is not
foolproof enough.

"Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> The Filters block by IP(s) on a schedule, URL, MAC or Domain.
> >> The Firewall will Allow/Deny by Source/Destination, IP Range, Protocol
> >> and Port Range on a schedule.
> >
> > This pretty much confirms what I was saying. There is only one PC in
that
> > household. The filtering needs to be done with respect to the Windows
> > user.
>
> Nobody, huh?
>
> The folks who are trying to control this are now telling it'd be perfectly
> acceptable if this one user has his internet access blocked entirely.
Other
> accounts must remain untouched however.
>
> I suppose removing that user's access to Internet Explorer would do
it--but
> obviously, just deleting any shortcut pointing to iexplore.exe is not
> foolproof enough.
>
>

If you require no networking capabilities at all (assuming this is just a
stand-along machine) you could release the IP or just disable the NIC. In
both cases your extra users would have to have "user" permissions not
administrator. Other than that I think you'll have to start looking into
third party alternatives.