Url filtering

[KashifSh]

When user asks for providing full access what categories needed to b allowed & Blocked in URL filtering ?

[LAYER_8]

Our best practices guide is here. At a minimum, all categories should be set to "alert."

For malware, grayware, high-risk, extremism, phishing most customers always set to block.

For newly-registered, medium risk, parked, not-resolvable, proxy-avoidance many of my customers set that to "continue," which gives the user a popup on their browser asking if they are sure they want to go there.

In general, "full access" shouldn't ever be the mindset of protecting a network. You should identify acceptable risk, many of the categories have no use in enterprise capacity. Block as much as you can, put continue on the ones you frown on, alert for all the ones that you know to be good. 

For a detailed report, contact your account team about scheduling a BPA. 

[BPry]

@KashifSh,

@LAYER_8 did a great job answering your question with the little information present. If that didn't answer your question or you have any additional questions, it's always best to be as descriptive as possible. Your question doesn't really go into what you are actually looking to do, which would go a long way in properly answering it. 

If a user truly needed full access then you would just have every single category set to 'alert', and therefore they would be able to access anything they needed, and while logs would record where they are going, url-filtering would never prevent them from getting to a resource. As @LAYER_8 rightfully pointed out that isn't a great option, and I would generally respond by asking the user what they were attempting to access that was blocked. It's possible they simply got blocked from access a resource that was mis-categorized, but that isn't a reason to lower your security posture. You'd just submit a categorization change request to have it placed in the proper category. 

[KashifSh]

THANKS

[KashifSh]

thanks