Re: [squid-users] CVE-2009-0801

2015-12-21 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 22/12/2015 2:34 a.m., dc wrote: > > Am 19.12.2015 um 00:52 schrieb Amos Jeffries: >> Why not? >> * NAT/TPROXY is mandatory to happen on the Squid machine directly since >> kernel and Squid are performing integrated operations. >> * PROXY protocol passes the ORIGINAL_DST explicitly over the

Re: [squid-users] CVE-2009-0801

2015-12-21 Thread dc
Am 19.12.2015 um 00:52 schrieb Amos Jeffries: > Why not? > * NAT/TPROXY is mandatory to happen on the Squid machine directly since > kernel and Squid are performing integrated operations. > * PROXY protocol passes the ORIGINAL_DST explicitly over the wire. > * SSL-Bump all happens "inside Squid".

Re: [squid-users] CVE-2009-0801

2015-12-18 Thread dc
Thank you very much for this detailed explanation! I have a setup where squid doesn't know about the original destination IP address, so I tried to enforce using DNS responses as destination addresses for any request, without success. Looking at the relevant code I found the limitation (and CVE)

Re: [squid-users] CVE-2009-0801

2015-12-18 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 19/12/2015 8:52 a.m., dc wrote: > Hello, > > please help me to understand the issue of CVE-2009-0801. Description of > the CVE: > > "Squid, when transparent interception mode is enabled, uses the HTTP > Host header to determine the remote endpoint, which allows remote > attackers to bypass