RE: [squid-users] Re: NTLM auth for RPC over HTTPS to outlook everywhere

Hi Fried,

I know all this links !! :), but As you I've made squid to work like a charm
in front of my exchange for owa activesync and RPC too ... in basic auth,
not in NTLM auth, and I still stuck there.

Impossible to find a solution to make a linux front-end, neither with squid
nginx apach or pound ! That's it ! I think I'll give up.

BTW Thx !

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Fried Wil [mailto:wilfried.pascault_at_gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 22 février 2012 11:26
À : squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
Objet : Re: [squid-users] Re: NTLM auth for RPC over HTTPS to outlook
everywhere

Hi Clem,

I have test OWA RPC HTTPS and ..

Apache => fail. Apache sees this as a security
leak. This is a raw explanation :-). The problem is how apache and Exchange
RPC use http 1.1 . Microsoft
let bigger package pass over http 1.1.

Check these links :
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,3511
http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_20.html
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-2088

Squid as RP => OK. I have the final configuration. If u're interessted,
tell me and i'll send u the squid.conf

Nginx => Not tested but I think it will be the same as Apache ...

Regards,

Wilfried

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:19:31AM +0100, Clem wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Coming back after weeks of researches, gave up with squid, tried with
pound
> and nginx reverse proxy, and same issue, and the point is (getting it from
> numbers of hints and searches in forums):
>
> For pound (from a user in forum):
>
> ---------- POUND ------------
> I looked into this when I first started using pound. This is a rather
> simplified explanation of what I discovered (and could be completely
> wrong - I don't know enough about RPC or HTTP). When Outlook sends the
> first HTTP request it specifies a content-length of 1GB. I think this
> is so the request stays open and RPC commands get sent via this
> "tunnel". Pound (being the good proxy that it is) sits and waits for
> the 1GB of data to arrive and does not pass the request to the BE until
> it does. Pound eventually times out waiting for the promised 1GB of
> data and gives up.
>
> Here's Microsoft's details of the protocol:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa995784(EXCHG.65).aspx
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996706(EXCHG.65).aspx
> ---------- END POUND --------------
>
> For NGINX (in logs) :
>
> ----------- NGINX ------------
>
> 2012/02/21 17:19:31 [error] 17072#0: *6 client intended to send too large
> body: 1073741824 bytes, client: x.x.x.x, server: mail.xx.fr, request:
> "RPC_IN_DATA /rpc/rpcproxy.dll?localmail.fr:6002 HTTP/1.1", host:
> "mail.xx.fr"
>
> ---------- END NGINX -----------
>
> IMHO, it's exactly the same issue I had with squid and rpc over https with
> NTLM ...
>
> Hope that can help, I'm now completely stucked !
>
> Regards
>
> Clémence
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Clem [mailto:clemfree_at_free.fr]
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 janvier 2012 13:12
> À : 'squid-users_at_squid-cache.org'
> Objet : RE: [squid-users] Re: NTLM auth for RPC over HTTPS to outlook
> everywhere
>
> On se second "anormal" I've sent, the certificate is sent.
> The auth works on basic, I think the certificate is OK, however it would
be
> rejected, isn't it ?
>
> -- ANORMAL2 (SQUID) --
>
> 2 0.001415 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.10 TCP https >
> 33043 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=16384 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=0 TSV=0 TSER=0
> SACK_PERM=1
> 3 0.001457 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TCP 33043 >
> https [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=5856 Len=0 TSV=81334043 TSER=0
> 4 0.002583 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TLSv1 Client
> Hello
> 5 0.003850 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.10 TLSv1 Server
> Hello, Certificate, Server Hello Done
> 6 0.003887 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TCP 33043 >
> https [ACK] Seq=96 Ack=933 Win=7712 Len=0 TSV=81334044 TSER=23422065
> 7 0.007140 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TLSv1 Client
> Key Exchange, Change Cipher Spec, Encrypted Handshake Message
> 8 0.042683 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.10 TLSv1 Change
> Cipher Spec, Encrypted Handshake Message
> 9 0.043505 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
> Application Data
>
> -- ANORMAL2 (SQUID) END --
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3_at_treenet.co.nz]
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 janvier 2012 12:24
> À : squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> Objet : Re: [squid-users] Re: NTLM auth for RPC over HTTPS to outlook
> everywhere
>
> On 26/01/2012 11:55 p.m., Clem wrote:
> > Amos and Isenberg,
> >
> > For me, ntlm is not an option, I have to make it working, cause all my
> > clients are in ntlm on outlook, especially the external ones. And that
> > worked without squid, and I want that can work with it at frond end.
> >
> > I've sniffed the sequence on working ntlm auth and not working (squid)
> auth
> > (192.168.3.15 is exchange serv, 192.168.1.134 my IP on direct RPCoHTTPS,
> and
> > 192.168.1.10 squid server redirecting from an external ip):
>
> Aha. Some use yes. It seems to confirm that the supported SSL encryption
> types are probably the problem.
>
> The packets you call "NORMAL" the client connects, server accepts that
> and hands over its certificate.
>
> The packets you call "ANORMAL" the client connects, the server indicates
> a encryption change, the client accepts and sends the requst in new
> form. The server certificate is apaprently not involved.
>
> You can probably drill down into those packets with "Change Cipher Spec"
> to see more about what is going on. Search engine is likely to be more
> help than me for the details you find.
>
> Amos
>
> >
> > -- NORMAL ---
> >
> > 2 0.000377 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.134 TCP
https>
> > 26701 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=16384 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1
> > 3 0.000428 192.168.1.134 192.168.3.15 TCP
26701>
> > https [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=64240 Len=0
> > 4 0.000992 192.168.1.134 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
Client
> > Hello
> > 5 0.002007 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.134 TLSv1
Server
> > Hello, Certificate, Server Hello Done
> > 6 0.002642 192.168.1.134 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
Client
> > Key Exchange, Change Cipher Spec, Encrypted Handshake Message
> > 7 0.035230 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.134 TLSv1
Change
> > Cipher Spec, Encrypted Handshake Message
> > 8 0.036034 192.168.1.134 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
> > Application Data
> >
> > -- NORMAL END ---
> >
> > -- ANORMAL (SQUID) --
> >
> > 2 0.000529 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.10 TCP
https>
> > 47552 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=16384 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=0 TSV=0 TSER=0
> > SACK_PERM=1
> > 3 0.000560 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TCP
47552>
> > https [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=5856 Len=0 TSV=81027244 TSER=0
> > 4 0.001248 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
Client
> > Hello
> > 5 0.002110 192.168.3.15 192.168.1.10 TLSv1
Server
> > Hello, Change Cipher Spec, Encrypted Handshake Message
> > 6 0.002140 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TCP
47552>
> > https [ACK] Seq=128 Ack=123 Win=5856 Len=0 TSV=81027244 TSER=23409792
> > 7 0.002869 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
Change
> > Cipher Spec, Encrypted Handshake Message
> > 8 0.003423 192.168.1.10 192.168.3.15 TLSv1
> > Application Data
> >
> > -- ANORMAL (SQUID) END --
> >
> > I hope that can help you, as I can see there is a difference when the
> > exchange server answer Hello, but I can't understand more ...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Clémence
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Isenberg, Holger [mailto:isenberg_at_e-spirit.com]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 26 janvier 2012 11:01
> > À : squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> > Objet : RE: [squid-users] Re: NTLM auth for RPC over HTTPS to outlook
> > everywhere
> >
> > I'm wondering if NTLM would work at all with any non-ISA proxy for
Outlook
> > Anywhere. After reading
> >
>
http://www.sysadminlab.net/exchange/outlook-anywhere-basic-vs-ntlm-authentic
> > ation-explained I'll stay with Basic Auth and when using it over https I
> > don't see any reason for not doing. Of course when all your traffic to
the
> > Exchange https connector goes over squid, even on the local network,
then
> > you have a reason to use single sign-on login methods, but for that in
our
> > local network clients can connect directy to Exchange.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Wed Feb 22 2012 - 11:33:17 MST