Good morning squid users,
I'm facing a weird situation in my Company. let me explain:
I installed squid(3.5.20) on CentOS 7 minimal to perform as an ftp-proxy.
My configuration file looks like this:
/etc/squid/squid.conf
###
>> I installed squid(3.5.20) on CentOS 7 minimal to perform as an ftp-proxy.
>>
>> My configuration file looks like this:
>...snip...
snip?
>> acl SSL_ports port 443 21
>Er, what?
>Why are you specifying port 21 as SSL?
I saw many guides that ask for it e.g.
https://unix.stackexchange.com/qu
ntrol connection source IP address."
Does this mean that no active connections will be stablished between the
dest. Host and squid?
Thank you all in advance.
Regards
>On Thursday 15 June 2017 16:22:44 javier perez wrote:
>
>> I installed squid(3.5.20) on CentOS 7 minimal to p
Hi Anthony,
My server acts as a focal point for all ftp transfer on a highly securized
network.
I have more tan 100 static routes pointing to different gateways deppending
on our client addresses.
The thing is that only 2 of our customers have old fashioned active-ftp
sites, so only bcz of th
y much for your time and effort.
Regards
On 15.06.17 19:58, javier perez wrote:
>I found this on the oficial documentation:
>
>ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/www/squid/archive/3.5/squid-3.5.0.1-RELEASE
>NOTES.html
>
>Section 2.6 Relay FTP
>FTP Relay highlights:
>2nd line:
>
http://ngtech.co.il/lmgtfy/
Linux System Administrator
Mobile: +972-5-28704261
Email: elie...@ngtech.co.il
From: squid-users [mailto:squid-users-boun...@lists.squid-cache.org] On
Behalf Of javier perez
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:53 PM
To: squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org
Subject: [squid-users]
Hi Alex,
I totally understand it, and I know that active ftp is being deprecated, so
It's logic that no further development It's gonna take place.
I'm happy with Squid, and it works perfectly on 99% of my clients but two.
Thank you for your time.
Regards.
On 06/15/2017 09:55 AM, Matus UHLAR -
Thank you very much Amos for your suggestion, I'm gonna study it straight
away.
Regards!
On 16/06/17 18:42, javier perez wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I tota
Yes!! I was wondering wtf is this xD!!
I will check FROX, and ty again!
Regards
On 16/06/17 23:26, javier perez wrote:
> Thank you very much Amos for your suggestion, I'm gonna study it
> straight away.
>
Ouch. Sorry I thought one thing and typed another. What I meant to suggest
They could open just a range of 5 dinamic ports and monitor them
intensively...
> Hello Matus,
>
> You are right, the thing is that our clients are not going to open any
> other port than 20 and 21 for security meassures (or lazyness).
FYI: The "for security" argument is bogus because;
a) allo
10 matches
Mail list logo
