Can squid do transparent proxy with https requests yet or is there an
work around?
thank you
On tor, 2007-09-27 at 14:26 -0400, fname lname wrote:
> Can squid do transparent proxy with https requests yet or is there an
> work around?
Why do you want to transparently proxy https?
Regards
Henrik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On tor, 2007-09-27 at 14:26 -0400, fname lname wrote:
Can squid do transparent proxy with https requests yet or is there an
work around?
Why do you want to transparently proxy https?
Regards
Henrik
while I don't pretend to know the OP's situation, in ours, i
On tor, 2007-09-27 at 16:30 -0400, Jason Taylor wrote:
> There are quite a few still-in-use versions of Java the fail to
> adequately detect that a proxy is to be used when the browser simply has
> "automatically detect proxy settings".
Yes..
> The transparent proxy is useful for catching all
Dear all,
subject settings doesn't work when i set the transparent proxy though
http traffic works. on analysis of traffic i have come to know that
proxy doesn't add it's source address to https traffic rather simply
forwards it with local net address to gateway/firewall device which
ultimately dr
abdul sami wrote:
Dear all,
subject settings doesn't work when i set the transparent proxy though
http traffic works. on analysis of traffic i have come to know that
proxy doesn't add it's source address to https traffic rather simply
forwards it with local net address to gateway/firewall device
Amos Jeffries
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Transparent proxy with HTTPS on freebsd
> To: "abdul sami"
> Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:49 PM
> abdul sami wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > subject settings doesn'
their browser)
Nyoman Bogi Aditya Karna
IM Telkom
http://www.imtelkom.ac.id
--- On Wed, 4/29/09, goody goody wrote:
> From: goody goody
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Transparent proxy with HTTPS on freebsd
> To: squid-users@squid-
--
> Nyoman Bogi Aditya Karna
> IM Telkom
> http://www.imtelkom.ac.id
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/29/09, goody goody wrote:
>
>> From: goody goody
>> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Transparent proxy with HTTPS on freebsd
>> To:
6/compile/BSD-ROUTER
i386
an early response would be very much appreciated.
Regards,
--- On Wed, 4/29/09, Amos Jeffries
wrote:
From: Amos Jeffries
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Transparent proxy with
HTTPS on freebsd
To: "abdul sami"
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Date: Wednesd
gt; squid version info
>>>
>>> Squid Cache: Version 2.5.STABLE10
>>> configure options: --enable-storeio=diskd,ufs
>>> --enable-snmp --with-openssl=/opt/ssl '--enable-auth=basic
>>> ntlm' --enable-wccp '--enable-removal-policies=heap l
> First of all let me Thank you v much to all for replies.
>
> i am searching/reading for PAC / port forwarding for squid on FreeBSD,
> but it would be grateful to me if you provide me an example/source.
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Technology/WPAD
>
> again i repeat i only want to allow https sit
Deal All,
So champs now the interesting part starts. ok
A few days ago we had proxy configured in the following way.
DR Site
\ int: bge0 int: bge1
internal netlan switch\Squ
Deal All,
So champs now the interesting part starts. ok
A few days ago we had proxy configured in the following way.
DR Site
\
\ int: bge0 intt: bge1
internal net -> lan switch
> Deal All,
>
> So champs now the interesting part starts. ok
>
> A few days ago we had proxy configured in the following way.
>
> DR Site
> \ int: bge0 int:
> bge1
> internal netlan s
On 29.04.09 04:58, nyoman karna wrote:
> you can NOT use transparent proxy for HTTPS.
>
> since using transparent proxy for HTTPS
> will be considered as man-in-the-middle attack.
>
> you probably may use PAC (as Amos suggested)
> but IMO it ruin the basic idea of using transparent proxy
> (which
Hi,
On Mon, 04 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 29.04.09 04:58, nyoman karna wrote:
> > you probably may use PAC (as Amos suggested)
> > but IMO it ruin the basic idea of using transparent proxy
> > (which is user does not need to put any setting in their browser)
>
> the whole idea
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 04 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> On 29.04.09 04:58, nyoman karna wrote:
>
>> > you probably may use PAC (as Amos suggested)
>> > but IMO it ruin the basic idea of using transparent proxy
>> > (which is user doe
Hi Jeff,
On Mon, 04 May 2009, Jeff Sadowski wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Gavin McCullagh
> wrote:
> >> the whole idea of intercepting proxy (also called transparent) is sick.
> >
> > Would you care to substantiate that in a bit more detail?
>
> If your blocking content that would v
> > On 29.04.09 04:58, nyoman karna wrote:
> > > you probably may use PAC (as Amos suggested)
> > > but IMO it ruin the basic idea of using transparent proxy
> > > (which is user does not need to put any setting in their browser)
> On Mon, 04 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > the whole i
> >> On 29.04.09 04:58, nyoman karna wrote:
> >> > you probably may use PAC (as Amos suggested)
> >> > but IMO it ruin the basic idea of using transparent proxy
> >> > (which is user does not need to put any setting in their browser)
> > On Mon, 04 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> the
Hi,
On Wed, 06 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 04.05.09 22:35, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> > Would you care to substantiate that in a bit more detail?
>
> Making clients think they connect to the destination server when they do
> not, breaks many things. It disables authentication, cau
Gavin McCullagh wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 06 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 04.05.09 22:35, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
Would you care to substantiate that in a bit more detail?
Making clients think they connect to the destination server when they do
not, breaks many things. It disables auth
23 matches
Mail list logo
