Several months ago, I released a tool (the ) to generate a Proxy Automatic Configuration file that can be used to bypass local proxy servers for Office 365 services. I also wrote a blog () on using the tool. I've received a lot of personal feedback on it, and wanted to expand on how to use the configuration file in production to manage desktops. As I stated in my blog posting, bypassing the proxy requires two elements: - A list of URLs/domains that the browser knows to not send to the proxy environment - Firewall access rules configured to allow outbound access to the IP addresses corresponding to the domains found in the proxy bypass list That sounds well and good; so how do you configure your desktop environment to take advantage of this proxy automatic configuration file? There are two basic ways that this can be accomplished. - GPO that specifies the location of the.PAC file (which will typically only be useful for Internet Explorer or Edge browsers, unless separate administrative templates have been configured for Firefox or Chome - WPAD (Web Proxy Autodiscover Protocol Web Server First things first.

In order for your clients to pick up a configuration file at all, there has to be a web server hosting the file. The configuration is relatively straightforward if you're setting up IIS. • Install IIS. Yes, it's pretty easy. If you've never done it before, here's the cliff notes on the various IIS versions. • IIS 7.x (Windows 2008 R2) - • IIS 8.x (Windows 2012/R2) - • Configure the appropriate MIME types (at this point, we're going to configure a MIME type for both WPAD.DAT and the proxyautoconfig.pac file--it's the same file, but delivered via different methods.

• Launch an elevated PowerShell prompt.

Processing Chromium's using the Windows proxy settings was a deliberate design decision. We believe that network settings such as proxy and SSL settings should be global on a computer, so that the user can easily configure them for all applications.

The Windows versions of Opera and Safari also use the Windows proxy settings. I understand the need to switch proxy settings when you use a laptop in different environments. Does Windows not have an easy way to switch to a different 'network profile'? Processing Clearly you feel strongly about this. Maybe my comment wasn't clear. Let me try again and answer some of the other issues as well. Does this mean Linux version is impossible?

It just boggled my mind that an open-source project where you can see for yourself all of the engineers working on Linux, you can see all the Linux related check-ins, and you can follow the build instructions to build it yourself that somehow people doubt that we are working on a Linux version. We have spoken clearly about our approach at Deciding to use the OS native configuration for proxies has zero impact on our ability to produce Chrome for any number of operating systems. You just made FOO completely impossible! I suggest that if you look over and think carefully about how you want to approach your proxy settings you can probably accomplish much of what you want through the existing mechanism. It is true that you will need to write a little Javascript to accomplish your goals. So now we can never have this super important feature?

One of the great benefits of being an open source project is that the community can express its needs and goals by contributing its own code. If this area is very important to you and you have a great design then submit the patch. You don't need to have an @google.com to become an @chromium.org engineer and we would love to work with you. Is contributing the code the only way I can get this feature?

You don't have to be a c++ coder to help get something you want. When the feature requires UI the team will need to work through lots of ideas on how to approach the problem. There needs to be UI that makes sense on Windows, Mac and Linux and the solution may be a little different for each. Drawing up and submitting mocks to the bug is a valuable contribution.

Having the mocks doesn't mean @google.com engineers will work on it but it may make it a lot easier for first time contributors of @chromium.org engineers to take it on. You are not going to provide FOO?! From my perspective PAC files provide you with enormous flexibility. If you are an advanced enough user to know to ask about lots of proxy flexibility then you are probably more than capable of writing a PAC file that does exactly what you want. If the API in PAC does not do enough then tell me what is missing.

Bypass the proxy for a defined set of local domains. /* Don't proxy local addresses. Web Security Gateway and Web Security Gateway Anywhere >Sample PAC file. Mar 30, 2009 Save your PAC file on the local drive. Next, open Control Panel and Internet Options. Click the Connections tab and the LAN Settings button. Uncheck everything except 'Use automatic configuration script'. For the address, put in file://c:/PAC_file_location/name_ of_PAC_ file, example: file://c:/pxy/pxy.pac In a.

Processing Having separate proxy setting is definitely a plus. Below are some of the reasons - 1 - Many times users would like to use different proxy settings or not use proxy at all for a specific browser. At this times having separate proxy setting in IE and FF helped a lot. 2- I do agree that this could be achieved by PAC, but how many ends users would have the knowledge/time to configure PAC or use command line options.

I might be wrong but may be you should keep this bug open and have this feature available in some release X later down the road map. Having a separate proxy setting GUI would help many end users. Processing Wow, the reasons given in comment 37 are short-sighted, immature and explain exactly nothing. I consider myself a power user, I need to fast switch proxies in a browser several times a day, yet I have never used PAC files. I didn't even know what PAC files are up until now.

Suggesting them along with the usage of command line switches is ridiculous and boggles the mind. Even if I had the knowledge to code a proxy dialog box into Chromium (I guess this is an easy task for a good programmer), I wouldn't do it, because it obviously wouldn't make into the final product and the developers have a 'we know better' attitude towards the feature. I've been a long time around open source products to know the real meaning of 'Patches Welcome', so please cut the crap. We understand it's your project and you can do as you please with it, but that won't stop anybody from criticizing your decisions. And despite popular belief, users are entitled to criticize Chromium, even it it's open source and free to download, as long as there are other browsers with the same two characteristics. Furthermore, users can write to Google en masse and request this feature in Chrome. I doubt Google wouldn't listen to their users.

So I urge anyone reading this bug report and agreeing with me to: - write to Google - tell them you want a Chrome specific proxy settings dialog box - send them a link to this bug report, so that they can see how Chromium developers are oblivious to what users want. I'm guessing there are lots of people who agree with me, but are not aware of the issue.

Even I hadn't been aware until 10 minutes ago, when I saw this bug report. I have always thought this feature is missing because developers are busy working on other stuff, I always assumed it's a 'coming soon' feature, but now I clearly see the lack of interest. This is where you can write Google about this issue: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/request.py?contact_type=feedback. Processing Actually the best way to vote for this feature is to star this issue. There are several nice tutorials about how to write a PAC file. You can find some here: Wikipedia also provides a nice starting point with a good general introduction.

The Chromium team is very open to new engineers. Pawal was our first about a month ago, he is a CS student in Poland who has contributed many excellent patches. You can read about the process of becoming a committer at However, you don't need to be a committer to submit patches. Anyone can submit a patch but you need a committer to review and commit it for you.

You should expect any patch to go through the same rigorous code reviews as any work. Personally, I find the code reviews to be an excellent way to learn and improve.

Of course, you could write up a tool that helps people generate the PAC file they want. This application would benefit all browsers. You could write the application in any programming language you want (unlike Chromium code) and it could even be dynamic. There are lots of ways to skin this cat. Processing As stated before, I'm not a programmer, I'm just a Chrome user. I don't want to deal with PAC files, as long as Firefox can manage proxies by itself.

I want this feature in Chrome and I wrote to Google about that. IMO it's something absolutely necessary in a modern browser. I starred this issue in the bugtracker, but this won't help anyone, because it's obvious that the Chromium team does not wish to implement the feature.

Cei 82 25 Terza Edizione Pdf Writer. The best course of action is to ask for this feature in Chrome. I don't really care if it makes it into Chromium or not, but I guess once it's in Chrome, Chromium will have it to. Or even better, given enough people ask for it, we will suddenly see it inside Chromium and from there in Chrome.

Processing I never would have thought that another web browser would use the 'Microsoft Internet Options' as their internet options. I had always figured that no other web browser (though I have not tried them all) would do that because they do not offer the flexibility that someone with enough knowhow to install their own non-IE browser would want or need. I love the other options that Chrome has, but the lack of independent network settings knocks it out of the running for most professionals. If I could code this option, I would submit a patch, but my programming skills are still in the 'coming soon' status.

Processing Both Firefox and Opera support multiple proxy configuration settings, easily accessible via the GUI, not by using command line switches. The point is that to gain widespread usage a program needs to be flexible.

The ability to change basic proxy settings is a must-have feature. For those people that just want to share the administrators settings for IE, then they should be able to do that. For those that don't, then the option to set custom proxy settings should be available. Switching between these configurations should be as easy as possible. My scenario - I am a data / web server test engineer. I need to test multiple browsers, multiple websites, through multiple proxies in my private network.

I also sit on a corporate LAN so I also need to be able to access my corporate intranet and other web services. I use IE for the corporate and internet LAN access I use Firefox for testing. The basic web proxy settings built into Firefox are pretty good, but I'm a power user and also use an extension called FoxyProxy that allows much more detailed control over multiple proxy configurations right from the Firefox dropdown menu. And if I want I can default back to the corporate proxy settings at any moment to browse with Firefox in two menu click.

I wouldn't fancy having to relaunch the program using a different command line switch each time, and anyhow I doubt that would give me the control over my proxy settings that Firefox gives me as standard (let alone all the bells and whistles available in an add-on extension like FoxyProxy!) In general, then, application developers need to try to really understand the user profiles of all the people that may be interested in using their product. I would suggest that one of the reasons why Firefox is so popular is because it has standard features that appeal to a broad range of end users who have a wide range of varied and differing needs.

Of course, how Google Chrome / Chromium respond to the demands and feature requirements of different user groups is up to them, but it may decide whether they end up with a mass-market product or a interesting side note in the history of the internet. Processing I understand the argument of (note that Safari does the same but Opera (9.6) does not!). I also understand that you are reluctant to change this just because some people want 'independence'. But there is one problem not yet mentioned which makes the 'won't fix' assessment premature and plainly wrong: As described in duplicate, my company IT configures a proxy configuration which simply doesn't work with Chrome. I do not know the reasons, neither of their policy nor technically why it does not work. But the effect is that Chrome does not have Internet access.

Manual fixing does not help because the company configuration is restored now and then. Obviously this means that the PAC file proposal doesn't help either. Manual fixing might not even be possible for some users, see So I hope the prospect of will carry through. The feature is definitely needed as I could hopefully substantiate! Processing jon you've been fighting on this thread for a long time stating that users can archive flexible proxy setting by using a PAC file.

I agree with you partially but. I've tried to use PAC a few month ago, but never got it working and I was thinking chrome do not support PAC, the very same PAC file works on IE/Firefox/Opera. Today I found this thread and then I think I might be missing something, so I re- checked everything I could imagine, then I finally figured it out: 1st, SOCKS directive is NOT working, so tor is not suitable since it only provides a socks proxy, fortunately I can use privoxy to set up a regular http proxy through it. 2nd, local PAC file address like 'file://D:/tor.pac' does NOT work, 'works, I uploaded it to a web server, it works, while IE/Firefox/Opera were happy with a local PAC file. All above test was done on beta branch 1.0.154.48, my coworker's dev branch 2.0.169.0 was not working with the same setting, sorry but I don't have enough time and patience to test that. Processing >1st, SOCKS directive is NOT working, so tor is not suitable since it only >provides a socks proxy, fortunately I can use privoxy to set up a regular >http proxy through it.

SOCKS support is issue >2nd, local PAC file address like 'file://D:/tor.pac' does NOT work, >'works, I uploaded it to a web server, it works, while >IE/Firefox/Opera were happy with a local PAC file. File:// support is issue This has been fixed on 'trunk' builds of chromium, but is not yet pushed to users. It can be tested using a build from and adding command line flag --v8-proxy-resolver. Processing Wow.this thread is amazing.

It's pretty simple, most everyone has a proxy setting they have to use at work. Most everyone does NOT have a proxy setting they use at home. I use IE at work with the proxy setting and I use FireFox at home without a proxy setting. If Chrome will use the IE proxy settings, then I will NOT use Chrome, that simple.

Sure I could turn on and off the windows proxy as I switch back and forth between home and work, but the fact is with FireFox I don't have to, so I won't. If Google wants the business, they'll provide what the consumer wants, (which is pretty clearly stated in this thread), and yes I know this is open source, but lets get real. Processing Labels: -Pri-2 Pri-3 Mstone-X Status: Available Clarification from an internal mailing thread: We're not as violently opposed to this feature as it appears, but we're not actively working on it, don't intend to actively work on it any time in the foreseeable future, and don't have UI designs for it. So it is not strictly 'WontFix' but it's low-priority.

Note: Posting 'You must do this!!!' And similar on this bug will not in any way increase its priority. Please save everyone the mailspam and don't. Processing The following revision refers to this bug: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r15855 robertshield@google.com 2009-05-12 08:07:50 -0700 (Tue, 12 May 2009) 5 lines Changed paths: M M A M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Making command-line specified proxy settings more flexible - allowing for setting of auto-detect, pac url, per-schema proxy settings, proxy bypass urls. BUG=Review URL. Processing I'm the author of FoxyProxy, one of the top-25 most-popular Firefox Addons on I've been asked by Mickey Kim and Conway Chen of Google New Bussiness Development to port FoxyProxy to Chrome. I'd love to do that.

I'd be all over it. But it can't happen without not only this bug being fixed, but also a more granular means to select proxies (e.g., by each URL resource, or by tab, etc). I wrote a thorough explanation to Mickey Kim. Let me know if it'd be helpful to post here. Processing The following revision refers to this bug: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r16883 wtc@chromium.org 2009-05-26 12:07:34 -0700 (Tue, 26 May 2009) 7 lines Changed paths: M M M M Rename the --proxy-bypass-urls command-line switch --proxy-bypass-list. R=robertshield,eroman BUG=TEST=N/A Review URL.

Processing I'm trying to use the --proxy-server command-line option for Chrome, but it doesn't seem to be working correctly for me. I'm setting up my proxy using PuTTY ('plink.exe me@myserver.com -D 9090'). I can then get the proxy working successfully by changing the Windows Internet Options to set a system-wide proxy at 127.0.0.1:9090, but this only works if the SOCKS proxy is the only one set; all others (HTTP/Secure/GTP) must be left blank, or else I can't connect to anything. I'd rather only use the proxy for Chrome, so I've been experimenting with 'chrome.exe --proxy-server=127.0.0.1:9090', but that won't connect to anything either. Is it possible that the --proxy-server flag is setting the server for all protocols, and if so, is there a separate flag to set just the SOCKS proxy? (I'm running Chrome 3.0.193.2 from the Beta channel on Windows XP, fwiw). Processing I actually like the fact that Chrome uses the Windows proxy settings.

However, it seems to have missed the 'Bypass proxy server for local addresses' checkbox. If I manually add '127.0.0.1;localhost' to my list of bypass urls everything works as expected. Perhaps a small patch to add these to the bypass list when this checkbox is checked? Without this fix Google Desktop appears to be broken in Chrome because requests to 127.0.0.1 get redirected by my proxy server to my machine IP address which is then picked up by my local web server, which promptly crashes. Our lan admins keep resetting my proxy settings so manually altering the bypass list is tedious. I will try to use --proxy-bypass-list in the interim (I'm assuming this adds to the IE list, rather than replaces it).

Processing I have a problem, the proxy issue has been resolved through command line but stil the chrome asks for proxy server password everytime I open any sit and for some site it keeps on asking the same even if i provide the required password. Saving the password does not help either, we are using squid/2.5.STABLE14 and I am attaching the problem snapshot. Please find a way to save the proxy password permanently, as i have no problem in IE in web browsing through the same proxy configuration. Processing I suspect Google will never have a native, Firefox-like proxy set-up for political reasons. Madlib Shades Of Blue Download Rar. Google wants the adoption of Chrome at corporations and governments, and corporations and governments won't adopt Chrome unless they can lock security permissions to proxy configurations on users' desktops.

If Chrome will allow the users to bypass corporate or governmental network controls, it won't be adopted. Just another example of what happens when what once was an innovative, user-centric company becomes a huge corporate monster that doesn't care for privacy or anonymity of its users. 'Do no Evil' my ass. Processing Personally, this is not good enough for me. The only thing keeping me from using Chrome full time is this issue. Firefox + FoxyProxy is just way better.

I don't understand why you would not consider having the default being to use the IE settings, and then optionally use custom settings within Chrome. To appease enterprise people, you could simply check the Group Policy for 'Disable the Connections page' which if turned on, for IE hides the option to change the network settings in IE. If this is on in Chrome, you could just assume that the IE settings MUST be used and not allow custom settings in chrome. Come on google, don't be evil! Processing Command line is definitely far from ready. One can't change proxy setting without restarting the browser(Webapp).

And i don't even know if the change will be applied on the fly accordingly,if I change the PAC script when chrome is open. This limits the browser flexibility.

1.Restarting the browser is not as simple as before, since part of the browser many be running as Webapp. Which the users,for some reason, don't want to restart. 2.For Chinese users, many of them can't work without proxy, and free proxies could be dead at any time.They need to try other proxy. Switching proxy on the fly is every important. This feature requires an UI or at least a set of exposed API for plug-ins. Processing Thanks for letting me know--Chrome is uninstalled now and I can spare myself the trouble of ever looking at it again. This is a fail so typical of the boneheaded engineers at Google.

Because you don't need it or envision it, nobody needs it and they are clueless. Then you want me to click the star so that I get pain in the ass emails (letting me know that you have no desire to fix it, no plans to fix it, but you'll keep letting me know that nothing's changed). Thanks but no thanks, as I've also said to Gapminder, Google Docs, the latest lame attempt at a social networking site, etc. Have fun pissing the money away guys, sooner or later it'll catch up with you. Processing For everyone that keeps pointing out the --proxy-server=foo:port this does not work on a socks proxy. And yes I've tried using socks and socks5 versions of the command to no avail.

This issue really strikes me as being backwards and for whatever reason not being what Ive come to think as the 'Google Way'. More like the Apple way (closed and rigid). Oh well FF works exactly as I want it to work and even though I want to support Google the lack of progress (been a year now!) on this key feature request is disappointing. Processing The Chrome extension API does not provide the ability to configure the internal proxy settings, and the way it is currently headed, it doesn't look like the API will expose these kind of low-level settings any time soon. It is really strange that there is resistance to adding a UI to this when a command- line option already exists - it's not like the underlying networking plumbing isn't in place. Perhaps a more detailed description of why this is not feasible or is undesirable would help? Processing While I agree that this feature 'should' be added in the gui, I also agree is not that hard with the command-line option.

Just create a shortcut to Chrome.exe and on the target of the shortcut put the following 'C: chrome-win32 chrome.exe' --proxy-server=foo:8080 just opening chrome, or using a different shortcut would use windows proxy settings, but using this shortcut would use the specified proxy server. If you need more than one proxy, create multiple shortcuts. One issue I did run in to though is, as far as I know you can't switch your proxy settings while chrome is open. You would have to close your browser and open the shortcut made for the other proxy.

I personally do not have to switch between proxies that much, I usually have IE set to the corporate proxy and other browsers I have a proxy that is private to our group and is open so we can do 'research'. So this work around works for me, but I could see how it could be painful for others. Processing Having read the bulk of this post there is one question that remains unanswered - 'WHY won't you fix it?' If the response 'well you can do it ex-GUI' stood in the rest of the programming world I imagine the world would look a little different, don't you think? FYI I haven't a clue what a PAC file is nor do I care - yet i'm here - why? Because this is a feature I use in other browsers therefore I want it. End of story.

Your job is not tell me what i should and shouldn't know, by setting up forum you've expressed your job as developing a piece of software that people want, so get on with it. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that the time wasted reading and replying to the posts here would have easily been sufficient for you to implement the request. Won't Fix suggests this product is being made for someone other than the people on this forum, would you mind telling us who? PS what about this early more promising post?

Comment 20 by jon@chromium.org, Nov 11, 2008 NewHTTP should support configurable proxy settings that are independent of the default system settings. Processing The command line option works but you have to run a new instance of the browser. If the browser is already running, launching another one with the option will silently fail. So you're telling your browser 'use this proxy' and it doesn't listen without telling you 'I can't, close the running instance first' ('and lose all your tabs or have them reload at browser start.

Through the proxy, which you may not want'). It seems that the developpers are missing a point: many people want to to be able to switch among many proxies in just one click. Being able to close the browser and re-run it with the option, then close it again to revert back to normal, 50 times a day, is absurd.

And it seems that you can't even run 2 separate instances of the browser (which firefox can): one that uses the proxy and one that doesn't. Processing Use case: I run 2 or 3 browsers at work. I want to use Chrome with a specific proxy for a specific purpose.

I want to be able to configure this through the GUI and not have to modify command line arguments or write PAC files (wtf are those)? I want to type in some settings to a dialog box, click a button, and have it work. Command-line switches: not user-friendly.

PAC files: not user-friendly. This is 2010, not 1996. Not having independent proxy settings in the Options menu is a glaring oversight for any browser worth its salt. Processing how many stars do you need to change the 'Wont-Fix' status!!!

At least give us a number so we can start a campaign. It is sad to note that an issue as basic as this is still unresolved even as chrome is entering its 5th iteration.

It seems that chromium team are just sitting on this problem. I need to use a different setting for windows update and internet browsing. Changing the global proxy for internet browsing jeopardizes my windows update. Using pac is a no go.

Even if i am savvy enough to know about proxies, i don't want to code pac files. Much like you don't want to fix this problem. Although extensions can basically add this functionality, it messes up with my other important settings (see reason 1).

Using a command switch doesn't work for incognito where this feature is needed. Is this feature just that hard enough for you? I already starred this issue but i am writing this 'spam' since there is no change in the status.

It is funny, that developers consider comments in this thread as spam, when all they really are are user feedbacks on a trivial feature that is sorely needed in chrome. If you want to stop the spam it is easy. FIX THIS BUG! Processing Proxy Switchy is not exactly what we want. Yes it switches proxies nicely, HOWEVER, it switches proxies for everything in windows that uses the IE proxy settings, so my other apps all get switched to use the proxy whenever I switch a proxy via this extension.

So, we STILL NEED proper proxy support. There's no good reason not to add it. The best argument was that corporations expect it to behave just like IE and use the policies, etc. However, it could be programmed to check the policies and behave like IE if that is the case.

If there are no group policies affecting the proxy settings for the user, they should have the option to not use the IE proxy settings. Simple, solved, now please implement this already. I'm still not using chrome only for this reason. Processing Proxy Switchy actually breaks the Windows proxy settings. Or is it that it tells Chrome to set the proxy and Chrome breaks the Windows Proxy settings. If I use Chrome with Proxy Switchy set for a local proxy, IE can't access the internet, Windows update fails, Windows on-line help fails, etc, etc.

This is really a half-assed approach. I thought I would like Chrome, but it's not really an independent browser yet. And you lost yet another Chrome user. I uninstalled with the intent of never going back until this thing is a fully fledged browser.

Processing The following revision refers to this bug: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r52088 pam@chromium.org 2010-07-12 09:48:49 -0700 (Mon, 12 Jul 2010) 8 lines Changed paths: M M A A A M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Add an ExtensionPrefStore, layered between the user prefs and the managed prefs, to manage preferences set by extensions. Update various callers of the PrefValueStore constructor accordingly.

The initial user will be the proxy extension API. BUG=266 TEST=covered by unit tests Review URL. Processing With regards to having a command line option to select a different proxy, that's fine if you're using a Windows shortcut that you can easily edit but not so when Chrome is your default browser and launched by some other application. You then need to edit the relevant Windows registry keys. It would be far simpler from a user perspective to have this as an easily editable setting within Chrome. If Chrome is going to allow a custom proxy setting (I'm not saying it necessarily should) then the command line option is inadequate. Processing I too would like to have independent proxy settings for Chrome as provided in Firefox.

Company IE has a PAC file and resets the system to that file on login, most users can't even change this setting and that's fine, they don't need to. I have my own PAC for Firefox so I can test other proxies or no proxy at all. I have control of it.

It's even better on laptop since at home it can't find the PAC so doesn't set any proxy but on the corporate network it does find the file so sets up the proxies. Processing I have to agree with the complaints.

I have been using Chrome for 1 month now and I love the implementation of almost everything in it. It's lighter than FF and much easier to configure the tabs, windows, and the extensions just rock. Being a software developer I love what you did with extensions an so. But sharing the same proxy settings as IE is a deal breaker. I can't run IE and Chrome on my corporate computer without struggling everytime with the settings. All of my colleagues think the same.

We keep IE for corporate stuff and its crappy proxy, and we wish we could use Chrome without it, but we simply can't. I see this issue has almost 2 years going. I respectfully ask you to add a Chrome specific proxy setting. Tomorrow I will be taking all my bookmarks and move them to FF. It's not that I'm mad, that's not the point. It is just not practical for me to sue Chrome anymore. It's a shame, I love the browser, but I will not indulge this nonsense with PACS or such.

I'll consider using Chrome again in the future but only if this proxy industry-common feature is available. Google, you're loosing developers in your audience.

Processing Chrome has the code to support chrome-specific proxy settings, and the feature is available in linux. The request is not extension fodder as the functionality is already there, just not in the windows build.

If you developers are not actively opposed to this feature (which many people feel strongly about), I suggest it be re-opened and (at worst from an end-user point of view) assigned a low priority. All in all, this issue was closed without proper investigation and forethought, and the only way to rectify that is by re-opening the issue and giving it the due attention that is being requested. Processing I fear this will not happen. It's been 2 years, read this Issue from the beginning and you'll see. Is this a big issue? Well it is an identity threat.

When people start associating a product with odd behavior, the product identity suffers, and many awesome products have gone down the toiled because of this. This situation is just making Firefox's efforts more easy.

Have you looked at FF 4 Beta? Out of frustration form this Chrome's issue I just did.

Get my point? I had developed several small applications over the years, and all I can say is that when I love my product, I really listen to what the audience who will use it have to say.

Otherwise, my products would have been nice academical endeavors without any real world significance. Processing There is an experimental Proxy API I *think* the values submitted to the useCustomProxySettings function are currently not used anywhere (need to check) but I am working on this. Does anybody feel like implementing a simple extension with a configuration page as the dialog presented in comment #143 (lets start simple) that does the following: - Provide the input fields - Assemble a useCustomProxySettings call submit it If you want to go fancy, you could have some mechanism that stores different presets in the extension's local storage. I will focus on the backend stuff and verify correctness by unit tests. If somebody wants to work on a GUI that would be nice. Just be aware that the Proxy API is subject to change. Processing Please remember that many of us are using (or attempting to use) Chrome on enterprise PCs without admin rights, where corporate intranet pages are designed specifically for IE, and IT-configured Windows proxy settings use an IE-specific configuration script.

Without built-in/native support in Chrome for an alternate proxy (PAC), Chrome cannot become our preferred and default browser for the internet, because an extension such as Proxy Switchy means we cannot multitask with IE on the corporate intranet at the same time. Imagine the power of a Fortune 50 company, with over 200,000 employees, with the ability to create a groundswell of support for Chrome and Google. But Chrome needs its own proxy settings first. Otherwise, that groundswell will continue to go to Firefox.

Processing Hi, I'm the guy from AutoProxy which is one of the must have extension for users from mainland China. I'm tired of answering why not porting AutoProxy to Google Chrome.It's just simply impossible.

I do excited at first about chrome.experimental.proxy API, and indeed tried to make a prototype extension. However, unfortunately I found this is an impossible task: * Chrome lacks of something similiay to nsIProtocolProxyService.registerFilter available in gecko; * In the meanwhile, the chrome.experimental.webRequest.onBeforeRequest event is asynchronous which means Chrome doesn't wait a millisecond for extension to change proxy settings according to specified URL.

IMHO, this is the most important issue for us to made a practical proxy extension for Google Chrome. Please don't misunderstand, this issue isn't only blocking AutoProxy, the same to FoxyProxy. I'm still looking forward to port AutoProxy to Chrome, and I don't mind which one approach as pointed above is implemented, but we do need some help from core API. Without that, you keep blocking the top 2 (FoxyProxy, AutoProxy) proxy management add-on of Firefox and their users away from Google Chrome.

Processing @jondick: I am one of 'the right people'. My current goal is to implement a useful Proxy API. The current state of trunk is that an extension can define proxy settings that take precedence over the windows (or whatever system) proxy settings. As uppsju mentions, you can also specify proxy servers on the command line (see the man page on Linux, Peter Beverloo has an even more comprehensive list: But the extension API with an extension will be more userfriendly to the majority of users. I am currently working on separate proxy settings for incognito windows.

Then you can have two different proxy settings in Chrome. The goal is of course to become even more flexible.

@lovelywcm: Thanks for the technical input. Would you consider it feasible if an extension provides a custom PAC script? This might be a faster approach for the proxy resolution: Extensions are executed in a single JavaScript VM whereas we offer several PAC threads.

Processing In Chrome we have exactly the same (no settings, system settings, custom settings). BUT: No settings and custom settings are only exposed via the command line and the proxy API. In other words: the default is 'use the system settings'. If you are not happy with using the system settings, you need to use an extension.

I have a very crappy extension that proves that the mechanism works. However, it is so crappy that I asked whether anybody would be willing to implement a nice one. There is one caveat: The Proxy API is currently experimental. Chrome needs to be started with --enable-experimental-extension-apis. Processing This is my current thinking (and I might be wrong): I see three different ways of implementing this: 1.

Use a JavaScript hook that intercepts each HTTP request. Use a JavaScript to generate a PAC file. Implement a more complex Proxy API.

Ad 1: I believe that currently each extension has one (and only) JavaScript VM. I don't know whether this will change in the future. This means that if we use JavaScript hooks, every HTTP request is channeled through a single thread, which makes concurrent HTTP lookups very slow.

Ad 2: Instead of using a JavaScript hook, a proxy extension might offer a nice GUI that generates a PAC script that is then presented to the proxy implementation in the network stack. The PAC implementation has several VM threads, each with one copy of the PAC script and therefore allows concurrency. The performance of this approach is of course affected by the implementation of the PAC script. (Long sequence of RegEx vs.

Tries for pre-filtering or something like that) Therefore, my idea is: The proxy extension should assemble a string that is passed as a PAC script into the proxy implementation. This is performed once on startup and every time the proxy settings are changed. Ad 3: Implementing a dedicated filtering mechanism is also an option.

It would probably be more complex and less flexible. But it might be faster.

I will have a look at the Gecko API and discuss it with the authors of our network stack. Thanks for your input. Processing Sounds like #2 is the way to go.

I guess, why reinvent the wheel, this is in a sense, what PAC scripts were designed for. I could see making an extension that mimics something like foxyproxy, where you can define multiple proxies, rules for each (for white or blacklisting patterns), and having it generate the PAC script each time the configuration changes (storing the config in a flat file or something). The only slightly annoying part here is that any time the user changes any settings on the extension, a whole new PAC script must be generated and loaded. For example, if I have 3 proxies, each with rules, in foxyproxy I can either use the rules, or I can select a specific proxy to use for all requests, disregarding the rules. Switching between these modes would have to require the regeneration of the PAC script.

I'm not sure how big of a deal this is, but it obviously isn't terribly efficient. A more complex proxy api might be faster, but I can't see it being as flexible. Processing @jondick: Absolutely want to bring FoxyProxy to chrome. I've been waiting a long time for the API to make it possible. Dominic Battre reached out to me via email today, and I'm composing a a reply now.

I don't know your email address, otherwise I'd cc: you. Whatever happened to Eric Roman and Nick Baum? They were working on an API for this back in August 2009. Here's a discussion of his proposal along with my counter-proposal: if it's dead and not being considered any longer, I won't lose any sleep over it:). Processing Still Won't Fix?

Still won't use. It's incredible that in 2011, and a 'browser' doesn't have an independent proxy settings.

Command line? Isn't there a way to make it more cumbersome? For what is worth, I'm not moving from Firefox.

Yes, FF may be a memory hog, lacks the eye-candy (not anymore in FF4) but it has been, and still is a FULL FEATURED browser. Between the Privacy issues, the increasing spam results in Google Search, and this excuse for a browser, Google certainly is losing followers. I used to be a tremendous Google Zealot, and made family and friends convert to Google and their products, now I'm utterly disappointed, and starting to look elsewhere. Thanks Google for ignoring your users. Processing I need a way for Chrome to NOT use the global windows proxy settings. For instance, There are some web apps at $WORK that only behave correctly in IE. So when I am doing work stuff, I can point IE to my ssh-tunneled socks5 proxy.

The problem with this is, now Chrome (which I always have open on my secondary monitor) starts using this proxy as well, and I don't want all my non-work related stuff going through my work proxy/network. In Firefox this is not a problem, as it has it's own independent proxy settings, not to mention the awesome FoxyProxy extension which lets you define which proxies (or non-proxy) to use based on the URL and such. I would LOVE for Chrome to have a FoxyProxy-like extension, and would be almost as pleased if it just had the ability to define it's own proxy settings, so that it is not using the global proxy setting.

Processing Labels: -Mstone-X Mstone-11 Status: Started Chrome trunk has a Proxy Settings API that allows configuring different proxy settings than what the operating system provides. You need to enable 'Experimental Extension APIs' in about:flags - and you need an extension that uses this Proxy Settings API. There is currently no such extension I am aware of, but we are working on that. We are also working on an API that allows FoxyProxy-like extensions. There is no need to further emphasize the urgency of this feature request for your particular situation.;-). Processing Today, using the PortableApps.com package of Google Chrome 11.0.696.14 Dev, I installed Chrome and tried to install the proxy-anywhere-extension. It wouldn't install on the first try, but the error message said to start Chrome with the command line option --enable-experimental-extension-apis.

Once I did that, the extension installed. It took me a couple of tries to get the options right (Socks4, Localhost, 8080, autostart). Also, once I clicked SAVE button, I thought it would just start proxying, but I had to shut down and restart Chrome and THEN it worked. The extension works nicely now for me and just needs a good bit of polish. I hope to see new features soon! Also for the API to be included in the release builds! Processing I am trying do deploy chrome on Windows Terminal Server, i´d like to be able to disable internet explorer by setting it´s proxy to localhost or something.

Adding --proxy to the commandline won´t help, because i can´t be sure this is how users will open their browser via the edited shortcut, maybe they just clicked on a link somwhere - default browser gets opened by the system, ignoring my commandline switches. I would really like to be able to switch my Users over to Chrome, but until there is a method for me to deploy proxy-settings on a large scale while retaining the ability to block Internet Explorer via it´s proxy settings i just can´t. Please fix this. Processing Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit The proxy extension API moved into stable with Chrome 13, which launched last week. As Dominic noted above, there are now a few extensions in the web store that use it offer the ability to configure Chrome's proxy settings: Proxy Anywhere and Proxy SwitchyPlus for example.

If there are issues with the API we've provided, or that functionality fails to meet your needs, please open a new request via http://new.crbug.com/.