Re: [squid-users] Running Squid Transparently

From: Marc Elsen <>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:17:35 +0100

>Can anyone tell me if this is possible? We have it running, but right
>now, have to manually enter the proxy settings in to each client's
>browser, and we'd prefer to not do that (less work=happy ;-) )

 While this is my >personal< opinion,less work is not always
 the best solution ; in this context :
 I advise against transparant proxy setup :

    - I can see that on a regular basis , problems are reported
 with it on the list,related to various issues. Mainly stability and
 long term service uptime of the intended setup.

    - In a current client desktop setup, there is always the
 need to define services is generic way.
 Meaning , you don't usually have an IMAP-intercepter on your
 network, so that you don't have to specify your mail server
 on your mail client (for instance).

    - The browser configuration , in none transparant setup, allows
 for much more schemes in the context of user authentication.

    - From network management view, you can install a SQUID box
 which is used by your users and is controlled and protected by
 you just as your mailserver is.
 Transparant proxy-ing was recently advised by a security consultant
 to me, but I said, that is can lead to security-tru-obscurity
 solutions, which I resent myself.

    - While browser setups are required, our PC admins are distributing
 Netscape and IE using Altiris, and these wonderfull people
 are making sure that the settings are already correct for the
 end user.

 As I said,other opinions my vary, in this debate.

>We have border manager, and are running it transparently - we want to
>replace border-manager with squid, and would like to make it
>transparent. Any help on this would be appreciated!


 'Love is truth without any future.
 (M.E. 1997)
Received on Wed Feb 27 2002 - 03:17:38 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:06:33 MST