Running squid in container is a bit tricky, since it is indeed an ancient piece of software, but I have managed to run it successfully before with squid configuration like this:
That's a more elegant approach. I usually just plow through obstacles, and the end result is not always ideal -- I like your approach better than the sidecar, I guess that I was using sidecars for other things and it sort of influenced my approach.
I'll try it your suggestions out and update the article, and thank you for your comment, already made sharing this worth it.
Don't even mention it, I have never used NetworkPolicy before, but now it seems like exactly the thing I am missing on my clusters to limit the blast radius if anything gets owned. It's quite incredible the amount of nftables firewall rules the k3s daemon just created for that example policy in your blog, now I am in rabbit hole trying to figure out how this all actually works under the hood. Thanks for this writeup!
I have had great experience scripting and running http://mitmproxy.org for these purposes. I also have set it in production as a dumb caching proxy for upstream services (We do a lot dumb GETs to list/enumerate)
Not just squid but mostly any http proxy can be run in forward mode if you want.
Caddys "magic TLS" can be neat for this if you actually do want to dynamically intercept those https connections in an easy way. It's a use-case where Caddy really shines. You can go nuts trying to configure that cleanly in squid. The docs (perhaps intentionally) make you work for the hidden knowledge of these dark arts. You also get modernities like builtin http2, http3, etc.
Nobody else bothered by squids very lengthy restart time or have I just never configured it properly?
(Not to dunk on squid, it's otherwise mostly great. Especially for its caching features)
I'm not bothered by restart times but that's mostly because that has never been a priority... but one thing I have half-done is a controller that gathers per-namespace configs, and with that reload times will become more of an issue.
Part of the reason I chose Squid here was precisely because I found it interesting to reuse something that was such a staple of web architecture patterns.
We use squid for egress control on Kubernetes and have also written a controller that runs in a sidecar container next to squid that monitors for custom CRD's, such as a whitelists.
The controller then updates squid.conf and reloads squid. This allows pods/namespaces to define their own whitelists.
The great thing about using squid and disabling DNS is you can stop DNS and HTTP exfil, but still allow certain websites to be accessible.
I guess you have just described what I was hinting at here:
>Linked with several of the above (mainly the centralised configuration) is that when using ACL rules to limit communication to external domains, these are cumulative: all namespaces will be able to communicate with all whitelisted domains, even if they only need to communicate with some of them.
> These limitations point toward why more sophisticated solutions exist, after all; a follow-up article will explore using Squid’s include directive to enable per-namespace configuration, and in doing so, show why you’d eventually want a controller or operator to manage the complexity.
... which is actually a good thing. More than making something "new", it's great to hear that the overall approach is sound.
I am struggling to lock down a pod in my home cluster to allow local connections to it's web UI but force all other connections through a VPN client. I'm going to investigate if I could use squid for this.
My next approach is going to involve using a sidecar.
One heads up to the author, the text based charts didn't render well on FF mobile. Text is meant to reflow based on screen size, typeface etc. I feel this is a great case for using a drawing/image instead.
Depending on what want for "lock down", this or something like this could work: you are essentially defining a single outbound communication path. In a way, your scenario was one of the reasons behind this experiment.
I'll take a look a the overflow thing, although I'm not sure if I will be able to fix it: I do have an image at the start which is an alternative to the text-based drawing, so nothing is lost. I use my own blogging solution that is essentially Texinfo (https://interlaye.red/Texiblog.html) so these blocks are the result of using an @example block (which is then converted into a preformatted block). I'm not sure this can be improved, apart from (as you said) using alternative images.
Using an http proxy like squid (or apache/haproxy/caddy/envoy/trafficserver/freenginx) does sound like what you should do next.
If you need the pod to do outbound connections as well as receive incoming traffic, usually that would be two different proxies (forward and reverse, respectively). Unless you do some fancy p2p service mesh.
I had challenges with split-DNS in my homelab k3s cluster trying to do this. I ended up just putting the apps in docker-compose on a VM that has static routes for my local homelab networks. I looked at tailscale to solve this since it has a kubernetes operator, but tailscale doesn't fit my use cases or work well with all of my devices.
> I had challenges with split-DNS in my homelab k3s cluster trying to do this. I ended up just putting the apps in docker-compose on a VM that has static routes for my local homelab networks. I looked at tailscale to solve this since it has a kubernetes operator, but tailscale doesn't fit my use cases or work well with all of my devices.
I don't need tails scale for this, seems like overkill.
I would like to better understand why my combination of marked packets and SOCK5 proxy are not fully working for certain UDP traffic. I also need to investigate if disabling ipv6 will help.
Using a VM or docker compose when I have k3s feels like admitting defeat with out understanding why.
> I would like to better understand why my combination of marked packets and SOCK5 proxy are not fully working for certain UDP traffic
I think UDP support for SOCKS5 proxies and clients is very spotty, especially beyond DNS. Probably some bugs out there. That might go for UDP in more or less esoteric container networking setups too...
If everything else fails, I've had the least hassle with socat, as well as just chucking workloads in full vm (if in container with --network=host) and using ip routes and policies.
You can certainly use the Squid ACLs to limit the egress for agents. One of the current shortcomings (I explicitly mentioned it near the end) is that there's no per-namespace granularity, so you wouldn't be able to determine it on a per-agent level -- but you would be able to generally establish that all agents would only have access to a global whitelist.
I'll try it your suggestions out and update the article, and thank you for your comment, already made sharing this worth it.
Caddys "magic TLS" can be neat for this if you actually do want to dynamically intercept those https connections in an easy way. It's a use-case where Caddy really shines. You can go nuts trying to configure that cleanly in squid. The docs (perhaps intentionally) make you work for the hidden knowledge of these dark arts. You also get modernities like builtin http2, http3, etc.
Nobody else bothered by squids very lengthy restart time or have I just never configured it properly?
(Not to dunk on squid, it's otherwise mostly great. Especially for its caching features)
I'm not bothered by restart times but that's mostly because that has never been a priority... but one thing I have half-done is a controller that gathers per-namespace configs, and with that reload times will become more of an issue.
Part of the reason I chose Squid here was precisely because I found it interesting to reuse something that was such a staple of web architecture patterns.
The controller then updates squid.conf and reloads squid. This allows pods/namespaces to define their own whitelists.
The great thing about using squid and disabling DNS is you can stop DNS and HTTP exfil, but still allow certain websites to be accessible.
>Linked with several of the above (mainly the centralised configuration) is that when using ACL rules to limit communication to external domains, these are cumulative: all namespaces will be able to communicate with all whitelisted domains, even if they only need to communicate with some of them. > These limitations point toward why more sophisticated solutions exist, after all; a follow-up article will explore using Squid’s include directive to enable per-namespace configuration, and in doing so, show why you’d eventually want a controller or operator to manage the complexity.
... which is actually a good thing. More than making something "new", it's great to hear that the overall approach is sound.
I am struggling to lock down a pod in my home cluster to allow local connections to it's web UI but force all other connections through a VPN client. I'm going to investigate if I could use squid for this.
My next approach is going to involve using a sidecar.
One heads up to the author, the text based charts didn't render well on FF mobile. Text is meant to reflow based on screen size, typeface etc. I feel this is a great case for using a drawing/image instead.
Depending on what want for "lock down", this or something like this could work: you are essentially defining a single outbound communication path. In a way, your scenario was one of the reasons behind this experiment.
I'll take a look a the overflow thing, although I'm not sure if I will be able to fix it: I do have an image at the start which is an alternative to the text-based drawing, so nothing is lost. I use my own blogging solution that is essentially Texinfo (https://interlaye.red/Texiblog.html) so these blocks are the result of using an @example block (which is then converted into a preformatted block). I'm not sure this can be improved, apart from (as you said) using alternative images.
If you need the pod to do outbound connections as well as receive incoming traffic, usually that would be two different proxies (forward and reverse, respectively). Unless you do some fancy p2p service mesh.
I don't need tails scale for this, seems like overkill.
I would like to better understand why my combination of marked packets and SOCK5 proxy are not fully working for certain UDP traffic. I also need to investigate if disabling ipv6 will help.
Using a VM or docker compose when I have k3s feels like admitting defeat with out understanding why.
I think UDP support for SOCKS5 proxies and clients is very spotty, especially beyond DNS. Probably some bugs out there. That might go for UDP in more or less esoteric container networking setups too...
If everything else fails, I've had the least hassle with socat, as well as just chucking workloads in full vm (if in container with --network=host) and using ip routes and policies.