[c-nsp] Cisco ScanSafe, aka Cisco Cloud Web Security

Eugeniu Patrascu eugen at imacandi.net
Fri Dec 6 08:17:53 UTC 2013


Helllo Pui,

Thanks for the pointers but I think you misunderstood my question. I know
how to set up a captive portal for WiFi access.

What I wanted to know is how are users logging into captive portals when
the browser has a proxy set and it tries to send all requests to the proxy
server which until they authenticate to the captive portal they cannot
reach ?

Eugeniu


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Pui Edylie <email at edylie.net> wrote:

> Hi Eugeniu,
>
> You could use the inexpensive Mikrotik User Manager
>
> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/Introduction
>
> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:User_Manager
>
> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/Getting_started
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blEGv5i-aO4
>
> Good Luck :)
>
> Edy
>
> On 12/6/2013 3:14 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> How do you handle captive portals in hotels and other venues where you
>> first have to login into the portal and then have Internet access ?
>>
>> This is my biggest woe right now in this regards with any kind of proxy
>> settings I can push to users.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugeniu
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  We currently use CCWS (previously ScanSafe) with the Anyconnect client.
>>>   Nice solution.  Whether your in the office or remoting from a
>>> Starbucks,
>>> the traffic is always proxied.  We went with the solution because of a
>>> couple reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. with multiple egress points on the corporate network, we didn't want
>>> to
>>> be down if we lost a proxy server.
>>>
>>> 2. corporate laptops whether in the office or at Starbucks would still be
>>> proxied.  This helps limit our virus and malware infections.  and
>>> provides
>>> HR reports.
>>>
>>> 3 split tunneling would be an option because the traffic doesn't have to
>>> come back to your internal proxy.
>>>
>>> 4. our remote home office bandwidth is very limited, so using the cloud
>>> it
>>> provided for better use of that bandwidth.
>>>
>>> all and all it's a good solution.  I'm not going to tell you that we have
>>> not had any issues, but with any new solution, there will be a couple
>>> bruises along the way.
>>>
>>> YMMV
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Herro91 <herro91 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also
>>>> known as ScanSafe.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now
>>>>
>>> called
>>>
>>>> Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing protection in the
>>>>
>>> cloud
>>>
>>>> that would potentially negate the requirement to have a full tunnel
>>>> (i.e.
>>>> allow split tunneling) for teleworkers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>
>>>
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list