• 5 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 20th, 2024

help-circle


  • Windows, as any operating system, is best run in a context most useful to the user and appropriate for the user’s technical level.

    • Need to run Windows apps/games and aren’t afraid to tinker around if and when something doesn’t work as expected or your software simply isn’t supported? WINE/Proton.
    • Need to run mostly light Windows apps and don’t want to tinker around? VM.
    • Need to run Windows apps/games that don’t rely on Kernel-Level Anti-Cheat, want direct hardware access and aren’t afraid to tinker around, especially if you only have one GPU, and when something doesn’t work as expected? KVM
    • Need to run any Windows app/game without things constantly breaking or the need to tinker around and staying on top of things? Dual-Boot from different disks, utilize LUKS/FDE and be done with it.







  • Ah. So Lemmy with version 0.19.4+ allows users to set a custom thumbnail URL for a post, which can be set to pretty much anything resembling a valid link, especially a link to another image in the local pictrs db and trigger a deletion of both when a minimum age check is passed.

    Also this:

    Except that the field allows some funny URLs e.g. https://t.t/;';'%22;...[:%3C%3E?]%27;%20yaba%20daba%20doo, if this is an issue too is not confirmed

    Relevant XKCD


  • Emotet@slrpnk.nettoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldServer build for Family
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    While this is a great approach for any business hosting mission critical or user facing ressources, it is WAY overkill for a basic selfhosted setup involving family and friends.

    For this to make sense, you need to have access to 3 different physical locations with their own ISPs or rent 3 different VPS.

    Assuming one would use only 1 data drive + an equal parity drive, now we’re talking about 6 drives with the total usable capacity of one. If one decides to use fewer drives and link your nodes to one or two data drives (remotely), I/O and latency becomes an issue and you effectively introduced more points of failure than before.

    Not even talking about the massive increase in initial and running costs as well as administrive headaches, this isn’t worth it for basically anyone.




  • I’ve been tempted by Tailscale a few times before, but I don’t want to depend on their proprietary clients and control server. The latter could be solved by selfhosting Headscale, but at this point I figure that going for a basic Wireguard setup is probably easier to maintain.

    I’d like to have a look at your rules setup, I’m especially curious if/how you approached the event of the commercial VPN Wireguard tunnel(s) on your exit node(s) going down, which depending on the setup may send requests meant to go through the commercial VPN through your VPS exit node.

    Personally, I ended up with two Wireguard containers in the target LAN, a wireguard-server and a **wireguard-client **container.

    They both share a docker network with a specific subnet {DOCKER_SUBNET} and wireguard-client has a static IP {WG_CLIENT_IP} in that subnet.


    The wireguard-client has a slightly altered standard config to establish a tunnel to an external endpoint, a commercial VPN in this case:

    [Interface]
    PrivateKey = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Address = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    
    PostUp = iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE
    PreDown = iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE
    
    PostUp = iptables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT
    
    PreDown = iptables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT
    
    [Peer]
    PublicKey = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0,::0/0
    Endpoint = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    

    where

    PostUp = iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE
    PreDown = iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE
    

    are responsible for properly routing traffic coming in from outside the container and

    PostUp = iptables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT
    
    PreDown = iptables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT
    

    is your standard kill-switch meant to block traffic going out of any network interface except the tunnel interface in the event of the tunnel going down.


    The wireguard-server container has these PostUPs and -Downs:

    PostUp = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE

    default rules that come with the template and allow for routing packets through the server tunnel

    PostUp = wg set wg0 fwmark 51820

    the traffic out of the tunnel interface get marked

    PostUp = ip -4 route add 0.0.0.0/0 via {WG_CLIENT_IP} table 51820

    add a rule to routing table 51820 for routing all packets through the wireguard-client container

    PostUp = ip -4 rule add not fwmark 51820 table 51820

    packets not marked should use routing table 51820

    PostUp = ip -4 rule add table main suppress_prefixlength 0

    respect manual rules added to main routing table

    PostUp = ip route add {LAN_SUBNET} via {DOCKER_SUBNET_GATEWAY_IP} dev eth0

    route packages with a destination in {LAN_SUBNET} to the actual {LAN_SUBNET} of the host

    PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE; ip route del {LAN_SUBNET} via {DOCKER_SUBNET_GATEWAY_IP} dev eth0

    delete those rules after the tunnel goes down

    PostUp = iptables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT
    PreDown = iptables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT
    

    Basically the same kill-switch as in wireguard-client, but with the mark manually substituted since the command it relied on didn’t work in my server container for some reason and AFAIK the mark actually doesn’t change.


    Now do I actually need the kill-switch in wireguard-server? Is the kill-switch in wireguard-client sufficient? I’m not even sure anymore.



  • Oh, neat! Never noticed that option in the Wireguard app before. That’s very helpful already. Regarding your opnsense setup:

    I’ve dabbled in some (simple) routing before, but I’m far from anything one could call competent in that regard and even if I’d read up properly before writing my own routes/rules, I’d probably still wouldn’t trust that I hadn’t forgotten something to e.g. prevent IP/DNS leaks.

    I’m mainly relying on a Docker and was hoping for pointers on how to configure a Wireguard host container to route only internet traffic through another Wireguard Client container.

    I found this example, which is pretty close to my ideal setup. I’ll read up on that.




  • Misleading title.

    In the string of images uploaded online, we get a look at file repositories, a rough map of the proposed Moon location, and shots of some early conceptual images and set pieces. As the story goes, CDPR originally intended for the Moon to be a featured location in the base game but recognised that it was too ambitious a goal, so they cut the content and instead decided to use it for an expansion – which ultimately never surfaced.

    Cyberpunk 2077’s development has officially ended, so there’s no chance this will ever see the light of day.


  • Great synopsis!

    The cool thing about GrapheneOS: It provides basically all the comforts and usability as any Android (stock) ROM minus some compatibility issues with a portion of Google Apps and services (Google Pay doesn’t and probably will never work, for example) while providing state-of-the-art security and privacy if you choose to utilize those features. A modern Pixel with up-to-date GrapheneOS, configured the right way, is literally the most secure and private smartphone you can get today.



  • I prefer Lemmy for:

    • actually engaging with content (commenting/posting/voting) instead of simply consuming. By the time the API restrictions came around and the ads/bots started to dominate, it felt pointless to engage on Reddit any more.
    • the positive parts of the federated and FOSS nature. Choose an instance, build your own, use or build any client you want to, federate or defederate whoever you want.

    I prefer Reddit for:

    • getting info/recommendations on things. The knowledge base is magnitudes larger than anything Lemmy can offer atm. Also, due to the centralized nature, it’s so much easier to search for something on Reddit.

    Lemmy’s got some problems and I can’t stand the interinstance drama, also, due to the decentralized nature, some instances can’t keep up or the admins don’t care any more, so whole communities can essentially be held hostage or simply die until a toolset to move a community from one instance to another (and propagate the change properly to the Fediverse) becomes available.