Therefore, please, PLEASE, never mention SSL Bump and security/privacy in one letter.O:-)
These are mutually exclusive concepts. Just like HTTPS and security. 25.03.2018 22:00, Yuri пишет: > > In principle, I do not consider as secure the technology that allows > MiTM (even in theory) - anyway, for what purpose. > > Since this is so - HTTPS is nothing more than a security theater with > a green lock for calming users. > > This does not mean that I do not care about the security and privacy > of users. But I provide it somewhat differently, carefully protecting > the proxy itself, its infrastructure and its cache. > > > 25.03.2018 21:41, Yuri пишет: >> >> >> >> 25.03.2018 20:32, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет: >>>>>> Le 25/03/2018 à 13:08, Yuri a écrit : >>>>>>> The problem is not install proxy CA. The problem is identify client >>>>>>> has no proxy CA and redirect, and do it only one time. >>>>> >>>>> On 25.03.18 13:46, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: >>>>>> That is exactly the problem. And I have yet to find a solution >>>>>> for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current method is instruct everyone - with a printed paper in the >>>>>> office >>>>>> - to connect to proxy.company-name.lan and then get further >>>>>> instructions >>>>>> from the page. This works, but an automatic splash page would be >>>>>> more >>>>>> elegant. >>> >>>> 25.03.2018 18:42, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет: >>>>> impossible and unsafe. The CA must be installed before such splash >>>>> page shows >>> >>> On 25.03.18 18:44, Yuri wrote: >>>> Possible. "Safe/Unsafe" should not be discussion when SSL Bump >>>> implemented already. >>> >>> it's possible to install splash page, but not install trusted authority >>> certificate. Using such authority on a proxy is the MITM attack and >>> whole >>> SSL has been designed to prevent this. >> Heh. If SSL designed - why SSL Bump itself possible? ;):-P >>> >>> without certificate, the browser complains which is a security measure >>> against this. >> Sure. It should. >>> >>>>> up and in such case the splash page is irelevant. >>>>> >>>>> If you have windows domain, you can force security policy through it. >>> >>>> In enterprise environment with AD, yes. But hardly in service >>>> provider's >>>> scenarious. >>> >>> service providers should not do this without users' permission. >>> at least not in countries where the privacy is guaranteed by law. >> Thank you, Captain Obvious. :-) Enterprises also should get user >> agreement before do that. Especially in BYOD scenarious. >> >> All these things are well known here. The question was about >> technical implementation, and not about the well-known truisms in the >> field of security and privacy (in most cases of ephemeral). >> >> -- >> "C++ seems like a language suitable for firing other people's legs." >> >> ***************************** >> * C++20 : Bug to the future * >> ***************************** > > -- > "C++ seems like a language suitable for firing other people's legs." > > ***************************** > * C++20 : Bug to the future * > ***************************** -- "C++ seems like a language suitable for firing other people's legs." ***************************** * C++20 : Bug to the future * *****************************
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
