[pritambaral]

> Your links point to people and services using intercepting proxies, not configuring one in their browsers.

Sorry, I didn't look too closely through any of those links, because I never used those specific products myself.

But I do clearly remember this being an issue for me back in the day. So I dug further. You'll be happy to see this bug report[1] and this commit[2]. Note these words from a Chromium dev: "This code was written when we discovered a problem with QUIC bypassing proxies."

1: Issue 389684: QUIC bypasses proxy settings | https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=389684

2: Issue 217783003: Do not use QUIC for requests that are through a proxy. | https://codereview.chromium.org/217783003

[remram]

Thanks! This is scary, however you'll agree that a bug on Chrome closed 6 years ago is a far cry from your claim that "HTTP and SOCKS proxies cannot carry QUIC traffic, so browsers don't even try. They just send it right through" present tense. Still thank you for finding this reference, it is a sign that setting a proxy in your system is not as secure as a firewall/netns.

[pritambaral]

> however you'll agree ... present tense

Yeah, I agree. I should've checked the validity before posting it, instead of just going by memory from years ago.

> ... finding this reference ...

It was a lot more effort than I'd have liked to put into my original comment, but hey, I was ticked off by your accusation of spreading FUD. Also didn't help that search engines today aren't what they used to be.