Aussie living in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Coding since 1998.
.NET Foundation member. C# fan
https://d.sb/
Mastodon: @dan@d.sb

  • 0 Posts
  • 149 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • If you’re not getting 100% full strength signal, it is literally unwatchable.

    It depends… Sometimes it’s terrible, while other times even low signal strength is fine. I only get around 65% signal strength and 75% signal quality for one channel (ABC, I think?), and it still works fine with no stuttering.

    I use a HDHomeRun TV tuner, so I can place the antenna where I get the best signal, and the HDHomeRun transmits it over my LAN.




  • dan@upvote.autoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldWhere are you running your wireguard endpoint?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Both of those documents agree with me? RedHat are just using the terms “client” and “server” to make it easier for people to understand, but they explicitly say that all hosts are “peers”.

    Note that all hosts that participate in a WireGuard VPN are peers. This documentation uses the terms client to describe hosts that establish a connection and server to describe the host with the fixed hostname or IP address that the clients connect to and, optionally, route all traffic through this server.

    Everything else is a client of that server because they can’t independently do much else in this configuration.

    All you need to do is add an extra peer to the WireGuard config on any one of the “clients”, and it’s no longer just a client, and can connect directly to that peer without using the “server”.


  • dan@upvote.autoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldWhere are you running your wireguard endpoint?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    There’s no such thing as a client or server with Wireguard. All systems with Wireguard installed are “nodes”. Wireguard is peer-to-peer, not client-server.

    You can configure nftables rules to route through a particular node, but that doesn’t really make it a server. You could configure all nodes to allow routing traffic through them if you wanted to.

    If you run Wireguard on every device, you can configure a mesh VPN, where every device can directly reach any other device, without needing to route through an intermediary node. This is essentially what Tailscale does.


  • Setting up typescript takes an hour or two if you have no clue what you’re doing

    Modern versions of Node.js have native TypeScript support. For scripts, you can just write the script then run it. That’s it. No build process needed. A beginner could just rely on type checking in their editor (I think VS Code has the TypeScript tooling installed by default?)

    For web apps, just use something like Bun or Deno. Bun gives you practically all the tooling you’d need (JS runtime, TypeScript, package manager, test runner, bundler, and framework for building web apps) out-of-the-box. It doesn’t have a formatter, but you can just use your editor’s formatter.





  • dan@upvote.autoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldDocker security
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    you can override this by setting an IP on the port exposed so thet a local only server is only accessable on 127.0.0.1

    Also, if the Docker container only has to be accessed from another Docker container, you don’t need to expose a port at all. Docker containers can reach other Docker containers in the same compose stack by hostname.



  • dan@upvote.autoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldCurated list of selfhosted apps for your homelab
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    why is a tower defense game listed under Automation?

    and two of the most popular automation programs are missing (n8n and Node-RED).

    who on earth needs customer live chat and a lot of business-scale website analytics, webshop systems and CRM and ERP in their homelab??

    Maybe not in a homelab, but plenty of people self-host these. I’m setting up customer live chat (Chatwoot) and invoicing and account (Bigcapital) for my wife for example. I self-host website analytics (Plausible) and bug tracking (used to be Sentry but it got too complex to host, so now I’m trying Bugsink and Glitchtip) for my personal sites/projects, too.





  • dan@upvote.autoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldDecreasing Certificate Lifetimes to 45 Days
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This is one of the reasons they’re reducing the validity - to try and convince people to automate the renewal process.

    That and there’s issues with the current revocation process (for incorrectly issued certificates, or certificates where the private key was leaked or stored insecurely), and the most effective way to reduce the risk is to reduce how long any one certificate can be valid for.

    A leaked key is far less useful if it’s only valid or 47 days from issuance, compared to three years. (note that the max duration was reduced from 3 years to 398 days earlier this year).

    From https://www.digicert.com/blog/tls-certificate-lifetimes-will-officially-reduce-to-47-days:

    In the ballot, Apple makes many arguments in favor of the moves, one of which is most worth calling out. They state that the CA/B Forum has been telling the world for years, by steadily shortening maximum lifetimes, that automation is essentially mandatory for effective certificate lifecycle management.

    The ballot argues that shorter lifetimes are necessary for many reasons, the most prominent being this: The information in certificates is becoming steadily less trustworthy over time, a problem that can only be mitigated by frequently revalidating the information.

    The ballot also argues that the revocation system using CRLs and OCSP is unreliable. Indeed, browsers often ignore these features. The ballot has a long section on the failings of the certificate revocation system. Shorter lifetimes mitigate the effects of using potentially revoked certificates. In 2023, CA/B Forum took this philosophy to another level by approving short-lived certificates, which expire within 7 days, and which do not require CRL or OCSP support.


  • Yes, this requirement comes from the CA/Browser Forum, which is a group consisting of all the major certificate authorities (like DigiCert, Comodo/Sectigo, Let’s Encrypt, GlobalSign, etc) plus all the major browser vendors (Mozilla, Google, and Apple). Changes go through a voting process.

    Google originally proposed 90 day validity, but Apple later proposed 47 days and they agreed to move forward with that proposal.