<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span>By the way, Amos.</span>
<span>I have an idea spinning around.</span> <span class="">Is
it possible to specify the SSL error of the unknown
certificate issuer for the correct processing of the situation
when the client does not have a proxy certificate installed?</span>
<span class="">This would greatly facilitate the task that we
are discussing.</span></span></p>
<p><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span class="">We're
can, in this case, just use deny_info to redirect client to
proxy page. <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span>;-)</span></span><br>
</span></span></p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">26.03.2018 04:05, Yuri пишет:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d96136f0-bf89-d3ee-af98-f8347f82c3e8@gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">And yes, HTTPS is insecure by design and all our actions does not it
less insecure :-D
26.03.2018 04:03, Yuri пишет:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
26.03.2018 03:55, Amos Jeffries пишет:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 26/03/18 10:16, Yuri wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">26.03.2018 03:02, Amos Jeffries пишет:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 26/03/18 09:49, Yuri wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">26.03.2018 02:45, Amos Jeffries пишет:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 26/03/18 04:41, Yuri wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">25.03.2018 20:32, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Le 25/03/2018 à 13:08, Yuri a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The problem is not install proxy CA. The problem is identify client
has no proxy CA and redirect, and do it only one time.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">On 25.03.18 13:46, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">25.03.2018 18:42, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">impossible and unsafe. The CA must be installed before such splash
page shows
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">On 25.03.18 18:44, Yuri wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Possible. "Safe/Unsafe" should not be discussion when SSL Bump
implemented already.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Heh. If SSL designed - why SSL Bump itself possible? ;):-P
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As all our SSL-Bump documentation should be saying:
when TLS is used properly SSL-Bump *does not work*.
A client checking the cert validity and producing _its own_ error page
about missing/unknown/untrusted CA is one of those cases. Since the
client is producing the "page" itself there is no possibility of Squid
replacing that with something else.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Amos,
squid is irrelevant here. "Used properly" and "Implemented properly",
and, especially, "Designed properly" - which means "Secure by design",
like SSH or The Onion Router.
HTTPS is *NOT*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">You are missing the point. Sometimes TLS *is* implemented properly.
Squid is very relevant here because it is the agent producing the
un-verifiable certificate. The certificate is un-verifiable exactly
because Squids own CA is being used and the client does not trust that CA.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Waaaaaaaa, Amos, why you say "unverifiable"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Because that is the situation. The client software cannot silently
verify the certificate nor automatically install the not-trusted CA to
cause that *previous* verification attempt to succeed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Sure. User always should:
a) Have root/administrative privilegies to install any CA in trusted
store on client
b) Device always asks users "Hey, somebody tries to install CA with
fingerprint blah-blah-blah.... you trust them? Install? (Yes/No)"
We're not talking about forced silently push proxy CA to client, right?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You can show CA to users,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Er, you are now going in circles.
The initial problem was that it is not possible to verify the cert
automatically *without* showing the user things. Requiring the user to
see something to get around that problem ...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes. We're want just to determine - is proxy CA installed? and if not,
redirect user to page to make desicion - install/not install. Get
internet/remain locally ;)
On this page we're can inform user about all require things: our CPS,
our privacy policy, warnings, legal issues, CA fingerprint, CA issuer
etc. ;)
This seems better? All same like adult CA does :)
We're all understand we're can't silently push any CA to client ;) This
is illegal, technically impossible, insecure....... ;)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Amos
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org">squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users">http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"C++ seems like a language suitable for firing other people's legs."
*****************************
* C++20 : Bug to the future *
*****************************</pre>
</body>
</html>