[squid-users] Questions Regarding Transparent Proxy, HTTPS, and ssl_bump

[Yuri Voinov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
 
Amos,

we are don't care about experts in the IETF.

What is the Squid Team position about SSL bumping and caching? Will
Squid be only content filtering proxy or remains caheable? What will be
next milestone?

3.5. now less used to cache SSL, only 3.4 series, you ceased to maintain
and develop. Moreover, 3.5 still can't bump in NAT transparent
interception (for my patform, for example).

My point is that I now have to make a decision on choosing a caching
proxy for industrial platforms. What should I choose? 3.4? Wait for
version 4, or take an active part in the final design 3.5, which is
still not suitable for productive operation? Then to find out that it is
unable to cache 90% of the traffic?

This is key questions and I have no answer yet.

WBR, Yuri
24.06.15 22:55, Amos Jeffries пишет:
> Though efforts are underway to convince the browser people to fix their
> lack of TLS-to-proxy for security on http:// and cacheable DRM-style
> crypto for just the payload of messages, etc. Once they accept that the
> bogus arguments about http:// being "insecure" disappear.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
 
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJViwl/AAoJENNXIZxhPexGp84IAITVXB55JpGcEOVJHSozJgdk
YuzZ9Z03zmT7rWdDH7B1203QtrBHLEKt7xjb9Ys8srOifZlvmz/ke3a5pSY8Dnr6
T6D4WYMgcWsNxiQdL1Am55fxqx1/zQD3HW01mWE/s43isc8fN5dYpa2n4pFbEZZE
rXw3y4outYka/+7VtyUg8PzSeCCQZeGK/vM3uMguTs8jwA0RMvhbOJeE8oiXVWJe
Tsticbv/f/VNfUL7HzeZiFBWBLCAAZu7AjEimvNYNpeulS//KBtl8X7QsBSP+vwc
YK4Mg5g68bppOIjtUBOJEF1IIjFC4us7BUyWztdk2hNd3eLTLwPmkRDm1ly/B2s=
=3faa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----