Re: [squid-users] Chrome 67.0.3396.99 irratic request behavior that evokes squid 4.0.21 TCP_DENIED_REPLY/403

Yaay :) :) fixed in squid 4.1 stable. Thank you squid team, you rock! I'll not delete this request just in case someone else wonders :) -- Sent from: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-Users-f1019091.html ___ squid-users m

Re: [squid-users] Chrome 67.0.3396.99 irratic request behavior that evokes squid 4.0.21 TCP_DENIED_REPLY/403

I just realized squid stable 4.1 has been released. Will try it first then report back if problem is till there! -- Sent from: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-Users-f1019091.html ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.

[squid-users] Chrome 67.0.3396.99 irratic request behavior that evokes squid 4.0.21 TCP_DENIED_REPLY/403

- Chrome 67.0.3396.99 erratic request behavior that evokes squid 4.0.21 TCP_DENIED_REPLY/403 - Problem exists only with ShutterStock, so far! - Sample URL: https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chalk-rubbed-out-on-blackboard-260nw-523858522.jpg - squid log of this URL GET... For Firefox: 1

Re: [squid-users] SSL intercept in explicit mode

Amos Jeffries wrote > Which parts (if any in the current text) are you getting confused or > lost by? It is not about confusion as much as it is about syntax. Since I'm always bumping to fight unwanted user traffic / analyze traffic consumption, I would need to use 'stare' verb. But, I had only tr

Re: [squid-users] SSL intercept in explicit mode

Amos Jeffries wrote > FYI this is "server-first all". peek and splice before "bump all" is > similar but also different in ways that allow it to handle more problems > in better ways. I never really got to understand how to implement peek and splice verbs. I was glad I could get away with server-f

Re: [squid-users] Squid is very slow after moving to production environment

Roberto Carna wrote > Thanks to everybody... > > I've reviewed what you tell me. I've executed "squid -k parse" and > everything is ok, and I've restarted de Squid entire server. > > When I use the server with IP#1, it works OK, is fastbut when I > change its IP to IP#2 (the IP from the curre

Re: [squid-users] Certificate transparency: problem for ssl-bumping, no effect, or?

MK2018 wrote > Alex Crow-2 wrote >>> Unless the protocol design changes to expose full URLs and/or MIME >>> types, >>> nothing will replace Squid Bumping. >>> >>> That being said, we are headed to the vortex by 2018.05.01. Let's drown >&g

Re: [squid-users] Certificate transparency: problem for ssl-bumping, no effect, or?

Alex Crow-2 wrote >> Unless the protocol design changes to expose full URLs and/or MIME types, >> nothing will replace Squid Bumping. >> >> That being said, we are headed to the vortex by 2018.05.01. Let's drown >> together, while we yell and curse at Google! >> >> MK >> >> >> > > Erm, can someone

Re: [squid-users] SSL intercept in explicit mode

Aaron Turner wrote > Thanks Yuri. That helps. As for the "sslproxy_flags > DONT_VERIFY_PEER", yes I understand the risks. In my specific case, > where my "users" are actually a bunch of automated web clients doing > some web crawling it's the right thing to do. > -- > Aaron Turner I tried using

Re: [squid-users] Certificate transparency: problem for ssl-bumping, no effect, or?

Hello :) Alex Rousskov wrote > Believe it or not, there are still many Squid use cases where bumping is > unnecessary. This includes, but is not limited to, HTTPS proxying cases > with peek/splice/terminate rules and environments where Squid possesses > the certificate issued by CAs trusted by c