RE: [squid-users] Why use Transparent Pr

Henrik,

Thank you for the information

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> 3. Would it not be wiser and much more secure to simply spend
the 30 to
> 45 seconds each, that it would take one to configure something like 15
to
> 30 workstations, if a Domain Controller is unavailable? (If you have
more
> then 10 workstations, a site really should consider some kind of
> centrally controlled DC or NIS+ Running Server.)

>Proxy settings can also be configured using DHCP in some cases.. (WPAD)

        This was something that I was unaware of. I will definitely need to look
into this for future implementations. By the way, is this something that
is supported by all DHCP services, or by only a few that you know of?

>Having the proxy settings configured is always recommended in favor of
>"transparent" solutions. There is a number of subtle problems with
>"transparent" HTTP proxying. Not the problems with SSL you are worried
>about however, more in the area of TCP/IP disturbance and some off
>applications using port 80 for other purposes than HTTP, and HTTP
>servers using other ports than 80..

        I agree in regards to having things configured, instead of being
transparent. I was unaware of other subtle problems with transparent HTTP
proxying. So, I suppose that staying away from transparent proxying can
relieve a number of headaches, even thought it could mean a spot more
work.

        Thanks again,

        Robert Adkins
        IT Manager/Buyer
        Impel Industries, Inc.
Received on Tue Jun 11 2002 - 13:05:02 MDT