HTTPS redirects to HTTP for monitoring
damian at google.com
Mon Jan 19 23:47:40 UTC 2015
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Grant Ridder <shortdudey123 at gmail.com>
> It looks like Websense might do decryption (
> http://community.websense.com/forums/t/3146.aspx) while Covenant Eyes
> does some sort of session hijack to redirect to non-ssl (atleast for
> Google) (https://twitter.com/CovenantEyes/status/451382865914105856).
The ssl opt-out has been deprecated (not sure if it's fully disabled yet):
If you need to disallow adult content, another option is described here:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:31 AM, William Waites <wwaites at tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> On 18 Jan 2015 18:15:09 -0000, "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com> said:
> > I expect your users would fire you when they found you'd blocked
> > access to Google.
> Doesn't goog do certificate pinning anyways, at least in their web
User-installed root CAs are allowed to override certificate pins in Chrome.
I think a lot of the problem is people have a false expectation of privacy
when using their work computers. The legal documents they have you sign on
day 1 probably explain that it's their network, their computer, and they
will monitor it. If you want privacy, bring your own computer to work
(which they probably won't allow on their network...).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk.org>
> chris <tknchris at gmail.com> writes:
> > I have been going through something very interesting recently that
> > to this. We have a customer who google is flagging for "abusive" search
> > behavior. Because google now forces all search traffic to be SSL, it has
> > made attempting to track down the supposed "bad traffic" extremely
> > difficult. We have contacted google through several channels and no one
> > google who we've worked with is able to provide us any factual examples
> > what they are seeing and because of the traffic being encrypted all our
> > usual capture and analysis tools have been fairly useless.
> I presume the problem is that Google has flagged the outgoing address
> on your NAT, because that's all they can see.
Yup, exactly. Additionally, Google's privacy policies don't allow us to
provide the evidence of abuse. Not that the evidence would help anyway,
since the searches are encrypted....
Have you considered deploying IPv6 and giving each customer their own
> address? Then only that customer will be flagged and it'll be between
> them and Google.
This is probably the best option. I realize it's not a trivial change so
we try to help where we can, but in most cases there's not much information
we can provide that would be helpful in tracing the abuse.
More information about the NANOG