NOTE: this is an updated version of a mail that didn't go into the mailing list. Hi all, I'm currently experimenting with Squid. The idea is the following: during office hours you can only go to certain sites. Outside these hours you can browse to whichever site you want. This is for specific IP(s) or IP ranges/subnets. No client side configuration. This is how the network looks: Code: Select all client --- --- router/firewall --- internet | squid proxy The router routes packets for the client to the Squid proxy. The client has the Squid proxy as the gateway. I have FreeBSD 9.2 on the proxy. Squid 3.4 compiled from source with the --with-nat-devpf and --enable-pf-transparent options. Firewall is PF. Somewhere in the process I got confused with the different ways to configure Squid and PF. I need intercept or TPROXY as http_port(s) option. From what I understand intercept will see packets that are for a webserver on the internet through port 80. The Squid proxy server will then set up its own connection to the webserver with its own IP. Therefor this won't work with HTTPS as it can't see the packet contents unless you use SslBump. SslBump creates a secure connection with the proxy server, which in his turn creates an SSL connection to the webserver. So this is a man-in-the-middle. Because of this reason and you need to install a root certificate in the client browser I would like to have another method. From what I understand TPROXY can accomplish this(however not sure how squid will check then which domain name is accessed). If I understand it correctly TPROXY acts as the client (sending IP packets to the webserver with the client's IP). It's not clear if the client will still have an SSL connection to the proxy server or not (I would think it still has, as otherwise the client should be aware that it has to sent requests with https:// just in cleartext to the proxy, which is not secure, and this doesn't seem very "transparent" anymore). Does TPROXY still need SslBump configured? As there is no man-in-the-middle here I would think domain names in requests can't be seen and squid can't react accordlingy to it.If the latter is the case, what are the pros for using TPROXY? In the end the packets still have to go through your Squid server where they can be intercepted. Anyway I configured PF. I read that I need ipdivert.ko which is available in my kernel and need divert-to rules for using TPROXY. I got squid running with Intercept using the rdr rules: rdr pass on $lan_if inet proto tcp from 192.168.1.32 to any port 443 -> 127.0.0.1 port 3129 rdr pass on $lan_if inet proto tcp from 192.168.1.32 to any port 80 -> 127.0.0.1 port 3128 However for TPROXY I should use divert-to right? pass in quick log on em0 proto tcp from 192.168.1.32 to any port 80 divert-to localhost port 3128 pass in quick log on em0 proto tcp from 192.168.1.32 to any port 443 divert-to localhost port 3129 >From what I understand divert-to doesn't actually change anything to the packets. It just delivers the packet on another port.The rdr rules rewrite the destination IP, so the HTTP/HTTPS request has to be read anyway to open a connection to the destination webserver. Might it be crucial to have 2 interfaces to make TPROXY(or intercept) work alltogether(as you can see in the drawing it is like a "probe" and not between the internet and the clients; there is only one physical interface; the first tests were with 1 interface in the VM)? What I have currently is 2 interfaces in the VM(on the same physical interface on the host) with different subnet. Checked with tcpdump that traffic is going in the right directions(through the squid proxy). Please correct me if I'm wrong at any point. It would greatly increase my understanding of the matter and probably help in solving issues. What way should I go here to get the explained goal? Thanks a lot in advance for any help!
