we have an existing squid proxy and would like to test an Ironport WSA.
If we use the ironport as a proxy we notice that it can decrypt https on sites like facebook or twitter and it is filtering as configured (read only facebook for instance).
But if we setup the Ironport as an upstream proxy to the squid the filtering does not happen and also the ironport does not decrypt https traffic (the certificate for the website is the original-not the one we have setup in ironport).
When another proxies use the WSA as proxy (upstream proxy) then the explicit request processed aren't different from explicit request that are made from clients directly. So in theory all should work. For the WSA point of view, your squid proxy will look like a "single" client doing all request. It depends on squid how much information it forwards, especally on request like HTTPS, it might only forward an connect request towards the already resolved IP address which makes it difficult for the WSA to identify or match certain policies.
Within your aclogs you should be able to identify why certain policies have not matched (e.g. decryption policy).
Generially speaking, WSA as upstream proxies are known scenarios but also include some "natural" limitations.
Table of ContentsIntroductionVersion HistoryPossible Future
UpdatesDocuments PurposeNAT Operation in ASA 8.3+ SectionsRule Types
Network Object NATTwice NAT / Manual NATRule Types used per SectionNAT
Types used with Twice NAT / Manual NAT and Network Obje...
[toc:faq]Introduction:This document describes details on how NAT-T
works.Background:ESP encrypts all critical information, encapsulating
the entire inner TCP/UDP datagram within an ESP header. ESP is an IP
protocol in the same sense that TCP and UDP are I...