Re: virus scanning by squid?

From: Wolfgang Mader (woifi) <>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:31:21 +0000

Excuse me, if I selected the wrong words!
I run the Squid for a while now, and I'm quite happy with it's
But many customers of us, and our whole company, is a little bit
paranoid (just enough, I think) about infected files from outside.
And on the other hand there are other products than squid doing right
that, but not supporting ICP and Proxy-relationships like Squid.
It is a question if we can continue to use Squid( what we would like
very much), or if we ARE to change the software.

If you communicate:" Hey people, this stuff via port 8081 is virus-
checked but takes a little bit longer to fetch. If you mind use port
your customers will happily go either the slow but secure or the
fast and dirty way.

Yours, Wolfi.

> It has nothing to do with not seeing any benefits - it has everything to
> do with believing that Squid is the wrong tool/place for this virus
> scanning; our Squid handles well over 400,000 requests per day at the
> moment, and provides responses fast enough for our users to want to
> continue using the proxy.
> Add virus scanning, the proxy won't be anywhere near that efficient, users
> will switch the proxy off and our traffic costs will soar again.
> Remember, virus scanning would need to be able to handle decompressing
> archives, scanning internal files, and some of those compressed archives
> are megabytes in size...
> Spare us an UltraSPARC 2/200 and I'll rethink my opposition to the virus
> scanning idea! ;-)
> > You must belong to seldom race, of people not seeing that binaries
> > and Word-Macros can be transferred via WWW and FTP.
> Sure, that's a good way to encourage support for the idea... :-)
> dave
Wolfgang Mader / / \ \
S P A R D A T A G |--< * >--|
Geiselbergstr. 21-25 \ \_/ / - - - - - - - - - - - -
A-1110 Wien, Austria,
Europe Fax:+43 1 74045 5704
Received on Tue Mar 11 1997 - 03:54:12 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:34:40 MST