Selfhosted

40152 readers

505 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

What do you guys do about usernames / passwords for your local services? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by AMillionMonkeys@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Basically every local service is accessed via a web interface, and every interface wants a username and password. Assuming none of these services are exposed to the internet, how much effort do you put into security here?
Personally, I didn't really think about it when I started. I make a half-assed effort at security where I don't use "admin" or anything obvious as the username, and I use a decent-but-not-industrial password - but I started reusing the u/p as the number of services I'm running grew. I have my browsers remember the u/ps.
Should one go farther than this? And if so, what's the threat model? Is there an easier way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Your firewall should take care of that, it's pretty rare to be connected directly without one and by default any decent routing package will filter incoming traffic that's not in the state tracking table. NAT isn't designed for security, any security benefit it provides is a side effect rather than the intended purpose.

Edit: check out ipv6 privacy extensions too, there are solutions there that can reduce info disclosure if that's a concern. You can accomplish many of the same benefits of NAT with v6 features without the downsides that NAT brings.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

There was an article that many Routers were shipped with Ipv6 firewall off, and less savvy users would never know to check

[–] DaGeek247@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not access, knowledge. Giving a specifically unique device identifier every time you visit a page is different from the website guessing if you visited recently based on your screen size and cookies.

You have to set up ipv6 to change regularly to avoid that.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I mean, the horror of having to tick a box to use rotating v6 addresses. These are all solved problems, they're not a flaw worth ignoring the entire ipv6 protocol over. Most major operating systems have moved to stable privacy preserving addresses by default, that's true, but it's not all that difficult to turn on address randomization and rotation either. And, hell, if you're that married to NAT as security just use NAT66 and call it a day, nothing about NAT is exclusive to ipv4.