<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic CSCul84561 - Ability to bypass Tower for HTTPS sites for Transparent Traffic in Cloud Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-security/cscul84561-ability-to-bypass-tower-for-https-sites-for/m-p/2701686#M166</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;We use the WSAv in connector mode and transparent (wccp) to get traffic to the towers for hundreds of customers. We have to have two processes to exclude traffic from towers:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. HTTP&amp;nbsp;- use the Wsa web UI policy (preferred)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. HTTPS - cli ASA firewall and exclude from wccp policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Extremely inefficient, high impact and annoying. Would be great if this could be done from the WSA UI.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco-is this planned to be addressed soon? This is a major CON of the WSA connector. And yes I know it works in explicit mode, but I do not want to configure browsers with proxy settings.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One last thing, the bug says 8 open cases and a sev 6,&amp;nbsp;however we have hundreds of customers affected. So you should change this to reflect 100+ open cases, and escalate the severity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thx&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;M&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2019 01:36:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mkirbyii</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-09T01:36:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CSCul84561 - Ability to bypass Tower for HTTPS sites for Transparent Traffic</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-security/cscul84561-ability-to-bypass-tower-for-https-sites-for/m-p/2701686#M166</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We use the WSAv in connector mode and transparent (wccp) to get traffic to the towers for hundreds of customers. We have to have two processes to exclude traffic from towers:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. HTTP&amp;nbsp;- use the Wsa web UI policy (preferred)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. HTTPS - cli ASA firewall and exclude from wccp policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Extremely inefficient, high impact and annoying. Would be great if this could be done from the WSA UI.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco-is this planned to be addressed soon? This is a major CON of the WSA connector. And yes I know it works in explicit mode, but I do not want to configure browsers with proxy settings.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One last thing, the bug says 8 open cases and a sev 6,&amp;nbsp;however we have hundreds of customers affected. So you should change this to reflect 100+ open cases, and escalate the severity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thx&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;M&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2019 01:36:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-security/cscul84561-ability-to-bypass-tower-for-https-sites-for/m-p/2701686#M166</guid>
      <dc:creator>mkirbyii</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-09T01:36:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MKirbyII,</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-security/cscul84561-ability-to-bypass-tower-for-https-sites-for/m-p/2701687#M167</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;MKirbyII,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Workaround option:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Rather than hard-coding the explicit proxy settings, you can use either a hosted PAC file or a combination of PAC and WPAD files with your internal DNS and DHCP settings to do "dynamic explicit" redirection. We have whitepapers on PAC file creation and deployment.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2nd Workaround option:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Have you tried (I am in process of getting the change order in to test this) creating a CWS bypass list for the entries instead of controlling it at the WSAs? The bypass settings &lt;EM&gt;in theory &lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;will prevent decryption, reputation, anti-virus, etc. inspection, so it should be a viable option, correct?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I shall try to update everyone after testing.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;CWS Team,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Any word on the fix release for this? Should the 9.0.1 code, with its fixes and optimizations for https in general, resolve this?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;T&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:42:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-security/cscul84561-ability-to-bypass-tower-for-https-sites-for/m-p/2701687#M167</guid>
      <dc:creator>Todd Everett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-04T16:42:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

