With yesterday’s post<\/a> I began exploring the world of web proxies. In general, they are hardware or software entities that receive and pass on the requests and responses of internet communication.<\/p>\n A transparent proxy can be either forward or reverse (see yesterday’s post<\/a>). “Transparent,” here, is the opposite of “apparent”: the internet surfer can’t see that a given request goes through the transparent proxy. Rather, they just seek the information, then get the response, as if they are communicating directly with the server.<\/p>\n In fact, the requests and responses might be passing through two transparent proxies – one at the gateway (forward) that connects them to the internet, and one in front of the server (reverse) that holds the resource requested.<\/p>\n I’d argue that, from the user’s point of view, the reverse proxy is typically transparent. After all, what’s it to you, if your request, on the server side, is funneled through a proxy to the server that can best answer? You likely expect such a premise, without knowing it’s called a “proxy”.<\/p>\n On the client (forward) side, the difference between “transparent” and “non-transparent” can be more meaningful:<\/p>\n Non-transparent proxying is probably what people mainly used twenty years ago. It involved configuring the computer (perhaps via its internet browser) to a certain connection, possibly via phone number (if dial-up was being used), internet address of the proxy, and even its port number. Someone needed to open the “set up connection” pane (or terminal), then enter those details. A tech from the internet service provider might come to the residence to do it, or else you might do it yourself, from written instructions or guidance over the phone.<\/p>\n Transparent proxying is likely the context most users are familiar with today. The user arrives, computer under arm, at an internet gateway (possibly a coffee shop, university, hotel, etc). They plug in with their ethernet cable, or just connect wirelessly to the host network. Then, they need to enter a code (likely posted on the wall for client reference) and\/or accept a license agreement. Doing so, they are able to surf the internet. Since their computer has needed no specific configuration to use that internet gateway, it’s a case of transparent proxying. <\/p>\n Non-transparent proxying can still be used: Internet Explorer 11, for example, in Tools→Internet Options→Connections, has a place to configure connection to a proxy server. Using a specifically configured proxy can lead to increased functionality. Moreover, the configuration details (address, port, and possibly other rules programmed into that proxy) will likely be unknown to hackers. Therefore, non-transparent proxying can provide increased security. <\/p>\n Transparent proxying, on the other hand, has the advantage of convenience.<\/p>\n Perhaps, philosophically, the difference between “transparent proxy” vs “non-transparent proxy” can depend on your point of view. For instance, let’s say you’re a visitor at your friend’s house. You didn’t set up your friend’s internet service; you have no idea about it. You go on the internet to find tomorrow’s weather forecast. From a proxy point of view, is the context “transparent”, or “non-transparent”? To you, it must be transparent, since you’re not aware which one it is:)<\/p>\n Source:<\/p>\n webupd8.org<\/a><\/p>\n maxcdn.com<\/a><\/p>\n pharish.wordpress.com<\/a><\/p>\n wikipedia<\/a><\/p>\n