foonex

joined 2 years ago
[–] foonex@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want to use these features for security, access them manually. But, OP said they are kind of a noob. Telling them to just use containers is dangerous and leads to false assumptions.

You are absolutely correct. I should have stated explicitly that I didn’t mean docker and/or using pre-built container images. I was talking about something like systemd-nspawn. And you are right that I should not have brought this up in this context. I will edit my original comment.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So, putting a process in its own network, file-system, user etc. namespace does not increase security in your opinion?

[–] foonex@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see. That‘s a valid use case. Although, in the spirit of self-hosting, I personally would either get another ISP or run a reverse proxy on a cheap VPS and connect the homeserver to that via Wireguard.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would anyone DDOS a random home server? I don‘t think OP has to worry about that.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could you please be more specific what exactly Crowdsec brings to the table? In which way does it “secure the network”?

[–] foonex@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where was that? At least the part where they force you to buy the book from their website or the college store would be illegal in the EU. (I am not a lawyer.)

[–] foonex@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don‘t know what specifically you would like to know and what your background is, so I will just elaborate a bit more.

The basic idea is that the VPS, which is not behind a NAT and has a static IP, listens on a port for WireGuard connections. You connect from the NAS to the VPS. On the NAS you configure the WireGuard connection with “PersistentKeepalive = 25”. That makes the NAS send keepalive packets every 25 seconds which should be enough to keep the connection alive, meaning that it keeps a port open in the firewall and keeps the NAT mapping alive. You now have a reliable tunnel between your VPS and your NAS even if your IP address changes at home.

If you can get a second (public) IP address from your provider you could even give your NAS that IP address on its WireGuard interface. Then, your VPS can just route IP packets to the NAS over WireGuard. No reverse proxy needed. You should get IPv6 addresses for free. In fact, your VPS should already have at least a /64 IPv6 network for itself. For an IPv4 address you will have to pay extra. You need the reverse proxy only if you can‘t give a public IP address to your NAS.

Edit: If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

I think Space Göring would be even more fitting. The Luftwaffe was like Göring‘s pet toy. Also he took a lot of drugs.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You could get a VPS only for getting around the double NAT.

Run a reverse proxy on the VPS and forward requests over WireGuard to your NAS. That way you wouldn‘t actually host any data on the VPS.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

How many outgoing emails are we talking about? Because there are a lot of free or cheap options for personal use and small businesses.

[–] foonex@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

You could try Consent-O-Matic. That’s what I use. It also doesn’t simply agree to everything like the other one but chooses the most privacy-friendly option instead.

view more: ‹ prev next ›