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:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
I'll put a recommendation out for if you're going to open ports: use abnormal ports. Someone is likely to try to hit your port 22 for ssh, but not your port 49231.
Edit: It's definitely some security by obscurity. Still use a strong password or keys.
I don't technically open any ports to the public. I have a site-to-site wireguard tunnel to a hosted server. The hosted server is running a hypervisor with two virtual switches. One switch is my external switch and only my Wireguard server is using it. The other is an internal switch where I place other VMs for separate things. A container host, a terminal server with xrdp, a monitoring server with netdata, stuff like that. All technically, but unnecessarily, accessed through nginx proxy manager.
Because it's site2site with my home equipment on the Wireguard server, i can still connect to my home network where i host a number of separate services like HomeAssistant from outside the home network.
I don't use tailscale, but Wireguard vanilla is super easy to work with. I also have fail2ban pretty much everywhere I can install it because it takes up practically zero resources.
None. If anything, I'd probably set up a VPN. But there's nothing so deathly important on my home network that I would need it while away from home. If I wanted to expose services, I'd use a reverse proxy and increase separation between services.
80, 443 for HTTP/S, and 587 for a VPN service. Reason being that I travel frequently, and often have to connect through a bunch of different networks, Airport WiFi, mobile roaming, hotel WiFi, etc. and you never know the kinds of network restrictions they impose on their pipes.
80 and 443 is least likely to be dropped, while 587 is a common SMTP port that could make it through most networks.
ipv6 and reverse proxied. yes.
I run a few services that require ports to be open. Everything that can go behind a reverse proxy does so. But there's some that can't and that's OK.
I use Remote Desktop, BitTorrent, and play games, so I need some things open for that. I used to be super paranoid about hackers and viruses and shit like that, but it's not like those things are looking for regular, everyday users and even if they did get in my system, I don't keep anything important on my computer so I can just wipe it all out and reinstall everything.
I'd if I could, but CGNAT.
This year I started using DynDNS with only my IPv6 address since IPv4 is behind CGNAT and it actually works quite well nowadays
What do you mean works? Like you could access from everywhere some services like Plex or Nextcloud?
yes just like with a static IPv4
Ok, I'm not sure of how exactly this works, but I'm gonna check it out since I have IPv6 addresses.
Just to be clear, even from IPv4 only can access my exposed services?
If you expose ports on IPv4 or IPv6 (port forwarding) anyone can access the service behind these ports if they know your address but so do you too
Heaps
32400