48
QubesOS workstation + homeserver, and DANE for TLS without 3rd party company (neowutran.ovh)
submitted 6 days ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

2.5 years ago, I migrated all my services hosted on a cloud provider to a homeserver.

This homeserver is also my workstation/gaming/dev/everything. I use QubesOS (an operating system based on the Xen hypervisor), and wrote some document about it: https://neowutran.ovh/qubes/articles/homeserver.pdf

Basically, I am hosting:

  • DNS
  • Matrix
  • Email
  • Jitsi
  • Mumble
  • Peertube
  • Screego
  • Nextcloud
  • Searxng
  • Tor
  • Wireguard VPN
  • Copy of wikipedia
  • Personal website And others.

And for TLS, to have better security, and to avoid relying on third party company/providers, I am using DANE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities

https://sr.ht/~yukikoo/dane_without_root/

https://github.com/buffrr/letsdane

The "dane_without_root" is one of my projects and I am welcoming review / feedback on it

( I also posted about it on the QubesOS forum: https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/highlighting-neowutrans-technical-doc-about-qubes )

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 8 points 6 days ago (1 child)

Yes, this part is intentional to raise questions and remark :)

The certificate on my website is not valid using the WebPKI standard, but is valid using the DANE standard. It is related to my comment for this project https://sr.ht/~yukikoo/dane_without_root/ .

My issue with the WebPKI model is that any government or big company on the planet could do a MITM on your connection, generate a certificate valid for any website, and get a read/write access to all your webpki TLS communications. The DANE model is an improvement over webpki because instead of the "anyone (every ca / intermediate certificate) can generate a certificate valid for anyone" model, it bring a hierarchical trust structure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    You missed my point

    It doesn't work for the user, so it doesn't work.

    Its about equivalent to the user as installing your own cert.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    DANE provides user friction..but as OP mentioned TLS doesn't work

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    Which means I don't care because nobody except myself will be able to use it.

    I'd care a lot if Firefox and Chrome supported it OOTB

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (2 children)

    It works fine, just ignore the warning and don't enter any sensitive info

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    Ah yes, the windows method "just click okay and don't read it or think too hard"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (1 child)

    If you're just pushing for WebPKI without "thinking too hard" about perpretrating a security system with a large number of failure points, then you're following that windows method.

    SSL/TLS have very specific benefits. None of which matter that much for reading random articles on the web. So I don't see the problem with this website doing their own thing to bring attention to the potential issues of the current system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    SSL/TLS have very specific benefits. None of which matter that much for reading random articles on the web.

    it is a huge benefit if a man in the middle cannot run scripts on your computer.

    So I don't see the problem with this website doing their own thing to bring attention to the potential issues of the current system.

    there is no problem with that. this could work, with the required patch to firefox, also in the repo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    IMO when reading random articles on the internet you already have to worry about untrusted scripts. I just use NoScript, and if the website requires Javascript I move on

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    I don't agree, I think there is a difference in likely outcomes. but even without scripts, you don't want you article's content (text, images, statements or names) be falsified by an attacker. Unless you are just reading the article to waste time, and magically what you read will not influence your views.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    I already considered that, and for an untrusted website I already don't trust the content or the scripts. So it doesn't matter if it was modified or not, it's still untrusted.

    Facts can be verified with sources you do trust (which should be using HTTPS). Logic can be used to verify others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    I already considered that, and for an untrusted website I already don't trust the content or the scripts. So it doesn't matter if it was modified or not, it's still untrusted.

    but then why are you reading it? is it cat photos and cooking recipes only? or does it have articles about pricey things you could buy, news, life improvement tips, car and other thing repair docs/advice?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •