| tested with removal of IP and port failed If I leave port I get this
2024/07/12 09:15:17| Processing: http_port :3128 intercept ssl-bump generate-host-certificates=on dynamic_cert_mem_cache_size=20MB cert=/usr/local/etc/squid/serverkey.pem cafile=/usr/local/share/certs/ca-root-nss.crt capath=/usr/local/share/certs/ cipher=EECDH+ECDSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA384:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+RC4:EECDH:EDH+aRSA:HIGH:!RC4:!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!SRP:!DSS tls-dh=prime256v1:/etc/dh-parameters.2048 options=NO_SSLv3,SINGLE_DH_USE,SINGLE_ECDH_USE
2024/07/12 09:15:17| FATAL: http_port: failed to resolve Host/IP:
2024/07/12 09:15:17| Not currently OK to rewrite swap log.
2024/07/12 09:15:17| storeDirWriteCleanLogs: Operation aborted.
2024/07/12 09:15:17| FATAL: Bungled /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf line 6: http_port :3128 intercept ssl-bump generate-host-certificates=on dynamic_cert_mem_cache_size=20MB cert=/usr/local/etc/squid/serverkey.pem cafile=/usr/local/share/certs/ca-root-nss.crt capath=/usr/local/share/certs/ cipher=EECDH+ECDSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA384:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+RC4:EECDH:EDH+aRSA:HIGH:!RC4:!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!SRP:!DSS tls-dh=prime256v1:/etc/dh-parameters.2048 options=NO_SSLv3,SINGLE_DH_USE,SINGLE_ECDH_USE
2024/07/12 09:15:17| Squid Cache (Version 5.8): Terminated abnormally. On Jul 12, 2024, at 09:09, Jonathan Lee <jonathanlee571@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks I fixed the firewall rules, I am trying tproxy and it seems to help with speed right now. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2024, at 04:57, Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/07/24 11:50, Jonathan Lee wrote:
I recommend changing your main port to this:
http_port 3128 ssl-bump ....
This is set to this when it processes
http_port 192.168.1.1:3128 ssl-bump generate-host-certificates=on dynamic_cert_mem_cache_size=20MB cert=/usr/local/etc/squid/serverkey.pem cafile=/usr/local/share/certs/ca-root-nss.crt capath=/usr/local/share/certs/ cipher=EECDH+ECDSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA384:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+RC4:EECDH:EDH+aRSA:!RC4:!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!SHA1:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!SRP:!DSS tls-dh=prime256v1:/etc/dh-parameters.2048 options=NO_SSLv3,NO_TLSv1,SINGLE_DH_USE,SINGLE_ECDH_USE
The key thing here was the removal of the IP address. So that Squid received both the 192.168.*.* and the 127.0.0.* traffic without needing separate http_port lines.
and receiving the intercepted traffic on:
http_port 3129 intercept ssl-bump …
Do you mean https?
Sorry. I missed that you had an https_port using 3129 already.
https_port 127.0.0.1:3129 intercept ssl-bump generate-host-certificates=on dynamic_cert_mem_cache_size=20MB cert=/usr/local/etc/squid/serverkey.pem cafile=/usr/local/share/certs/ca-root-nss.crt capath=/usr/local/share/certs/ cipher=EECDH+ECDSA+AESGCM:EECDH+aRSA+AESGCM:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA384:EECDH+ECDSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+SHA384:EECDH+aRSA+SHA256:EECDH+aRSA+RC4:EECDH:EDH+aRSA:!RC4:!aNULL:!eNULL:!LOW:!3DES:!SHA1:!MD5:!EXP:!PSK:!SRP:!DSS tls-dh=prime256v1:/etc/dh-parameters.2048 options=NO_SSLv3,NO_TLSv1,SINGLE_DH_USE,SINGLE_ECDH_USE
Https uses that port 3129
What should I adapt
http_port
https_port?
Both.
FYI, there are two issues:
1) listening on IP 127.0.0.1. Inside the OS there are different devices for localhost (lo) and WAN (eg. eth0). NAT is problematic already without introducing any tricky behaviours from bridging those "private" (lo) and "public" WAN devices.
The simplest solution is just not to put any IP address on the squid.conf *port line(s) with intercept options. The OS will select one appropriate for whatever device and tell Squid on a per-connection basis.
The more difficult way is to put one of the machines "global" (WAN or LAN) IP addresses. In your case 192.168.1.1. With most connections being from the LAN that minimizes the possible problems.
2) listening on a well-known proxy port 3128 for intercepted traffic.
There is malware in existence that scans for at least port 3128 (likely 1080, 8080 etc common proxy ports) being used by proxies like yours and abuses them. As a result at least one popular antivirus network scanner (from Trend) does the same scan to detect insecure proxies.
The worst thing about this situation is that the NAT very effectively hides the malware. So it is extremely hard to see whether it is happening to you.
I am not sure what UI you are using to show those firewall rules in your other email. However the one that had ALLOW for the port range 3128-3129 worries me. AFAIK that should only be for 3128 and a separate rule somewhere else to drop the intercepted port 3129 traffic pre-NAT.
HTH
Amos
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
|
_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
