-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 It seems to me that all this functionality must be enabled by default in the SSL proxies. As the base. Do not I have to wrestle with where (and how) to take intermediate certificates. Or how to define an unknown CA root. A proxy. At a minimum, it should write the information on them in the log - in an understandable form - that I was not engaged in telepathic guessing and did not use the method of Edison, turning over hundreds of log records. 28.10.15 19:55, Amos Jeffries пишет: > On 28/10/2015 11:57 p.m., Yuri Voinov wrote: >> >> >> 28.10.15 16:47, Amos Jeffries пишет: >>> On 28/10/2015 11:35 p.m., Yuri Voinov wrote: >>>> Hi gents. >>>> >>>> I think, all of you who use Bump, seen much this messages in your >>>> cache.log. >>>> >>>> SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert certificate unknown >>>> >>>> AFAIK, no way to identify which CA is absent in your setup. >>>> >>>> I propose to consider the following questions: how do properly support >>>> SSL proxy, if you can not identify the problem certificates? Telepaths >>>> sunbathing in Bali. The procedure, which currently can not quickly and >>>> in any way to effectively determine such a certificate. >>>> >>>> At the moment, the situation is as follows. SSL library - a thing in >>>> itself, it runs by itself and does not write any logs. Squid - itself >>>> and any useful information on the library does not receive but obscure >>>> diagnostic messages. The possibility in any way specify the SSL library >>>> diagnostic messages we have, and, as I understand it, will not. >>>> >>>> So, any ideas? >>> Make sure Squid is sending the whole CA chain to the remote end? >> I think so, "From the remote end". If we have web-server with CA, which >> is not exists on our proxy, we must install it (which means "trust >> them", yea?) in our proxy manually. >> >> I have idiotic idea - Squid fetch remote CA and offer us to trust and >> install interactively. :) This is, of course, clinically idiotism. :) >> > > That is what the Browsers do. It has been suggested to write a cert > validator that does it too. > > >> But - to support real Squid installation with thoursands users, I really >> want to know, which CA's not exists from my side. >> >> Intermediate CA's is no matter - if we have root CA already, fetch >> intermediate chain is not big problem. >> >> In this case, however, we faced unknown root CA exactly. >> >> Yes? > > I doubt. Chains do not have length limits and IIRC you can't know that > it is a root CA until you actually have it and see that it is > self-signed. At which point it is not "certificate unknown" anymore. > > What is missing is just some CA in the chain. It needs to be located > somehow, only then can the decision happen about whether to trust or not > and see if another up the chain is needed too. > > >> >> And so what? > > So by walking the chain and filling in as needed the cert validator > helper can probably fill the whole sequence in and reach a root CA that > is already trusted and tells you the found ones can be too. That is what > the Browsers do. > > > Amos > _______________________________________________ > squid-users mailing list > squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWMNcoAAoJENNXIZxhPexGp7IH/2oNicCzQ3FdYmZ3mZLrxGqx oqIbaDgkBwaTr2zXajIN4Rwak+zXVeXXFiF851K+EwQAB62P8B+aY+QU9ET6m+0m wCK6AnLrHlJ7c2EOK3wLgcAnzSyT5dzrJM17NPmTwGqT+dBgFfS5/mo4vxxS85fv qieeGV98cJSrhajnCn0FJTnaUPo+gWPygLxP/kIXKSEJj+BhCvPGKmXw0XixJDSZ yL6LY0wxvOlbAo+W7tNe6SgaUKWO+fsa0YKISmKrw5B6v00T8+iJ/XiUTS26cr67 KUJ+8rPR5Ue0GsQwHx/TiAKB4C/ZxnN6qT+hd6YoAsBKAHBdhooq5aGUDPo0BaI= =U/UI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
