On Sunday 26 September 2004 18:32, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Michael Renner wrote: > > Now I thougt it's time to test a https setup. Therefore, I added one more > > rule to the firewall: > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -s ! 192.168.2.53 -p tcp --dport > > 443 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.53:3128 > > > > Even the https proxy works if the squid host is configured in the > > browser, it fails as soon it should work as a transparent proxy. I guess > > an additional configuration is required to tell squid to work as a > > transparent https proxy ... but how? > > Why do you want to transparently intercept https tunnels? What is wrong > with using NAT/Masquerade?
We had a NAT/Masquerade network before, with open ports 80 and 443. The users are not allowed to do anything else than http and https. But they are clever enough to tunnel ssh (or much more: pppssh-tunnel) through the open ports. So we closed the ports and made this transparent proxy. An other reason are visitors: They should not have to reconfigure theire notebook while they are in our institute. So what we need is a setup that allows: a.) block every 'none' webpage trafic b.) usage without client configuration. Greetings -- |Michael Renner E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |D-72072 Tuebingen Germany ICQ: #112280325 | |Germany Don't drink as root! ESC:wq
