Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:42:45 -0500 From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> To: TM4526@aol.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Squid+Privoxy or Snort? Message-ID: <0657EFC0-34E3-11D9-A4E4-000D9338770A@chrononomicon.com> In-Reply-To: <1a7.2adb9674.2ec66782@aol.com> References: <1a7.2adb9674.2ec66782@aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 12, 2004, at 2:22 PM, TM4526@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/12/04 1:22:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 > bsilver@chrononomicon.com writes: > > The issue with proxies is that they are a drag on your network; = using > > squid as a firewall only isnt very smart. If you are already using = it > > fine. But on a large network you are better off using a firewall or > > some > > sort of bandwidth management like the stuff on etinc.com. > > >I thought his issue was more on finding internal systems having > >problems and blocking the specific sites from getting hit. > > > >The proxy should speed up access if the same sites are being hit, as > =A0 > The "proxy" doesn't "speed access", the cache does. So using > squidguard without squid enabled, or privoxy or SNORT=A0which=A0are > not=A0caches, is what I was referring to. > =A0 > proxy !=3D Cache > =A0 > which is I think is your confusion. Sorry, I hadn't run across anyone running squid in a non-caching mode=20 so I didn't specify that. SquidGuard is purely a filter and it can't=20 run without squid, to my knowledge. But I could be wrong.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0657EFC0-34E3-11D9-A4E4-000D9338770A>