Lmao I kept thinking you forgot to put quotes and was waiting for the inevitable “…this is what too many idiots think, even though it is obvious bullshit”, and yet it just…never came. Amazing. This might be the single most stupid comment I’ve ever read, and I’ve been on the internet for a while.
Is this about the straight werewolves author?
You will simply not be able to install anything, unless the FOSS dev is cool with providing their ID to Google, and agrees to its ToS, and Google likes the app and signs it.
Which many devs (myself included) will definitely NOT be.
TBH, it sounds like you have nothing to worry about then! Open ports aren’t really an issue in-and-on itself, they are problematic because the software listening on them might be vulnerable, and the (standard-) ports can provide knowledge about the nature pf the application, making it easier to target specific software with an exploit.
Since a bot has no way of finding out what services you are running, they could only attack caddy - which I’d put down as a negligible danger.
My ISP blocks incoming data to common ports unless you get a business account.
Oof, sorry, that sucks. I think you could still go the route I described though: For your domain example.com and example service myservice, listen on port :12345 and drop everything that isn’t requesting myservice.example.com:12345. Then forward the matching requests to your service’s actual port, e.g. 23456, which is closed to the internet.
Edit: and just to clarify, for service otherservice, you do not need to open a second port; stick with the one, but in addition to myservice.example.com:12345, also accept requests for otherservice.example.com:12345, but proxy that to the (again, closed-to-the-internet) port :34567.
The advantage here is that bots cannot guess from your ports what software you are running, and since caddy (or any of the mature reverse proxies) can be expected to be reasonably secure, I would not worry about bots being able to exploit the reverse proxy’s port. Bots also no longer have a direct line of communication to your services. In short, the routine of “let’s scan ports; ah, port x is open indicating use of service y; try automated exploit z” gets prevented.
I am scratching my head here: why open up ports at all? It it just to avoid having to pay for a domain? The usual way to go about this is to only proxy 443 traffic to the intended host/vm/port based on the (sub) domain, and just drop everything else, including requests on 443 that do not match your subdomains.
Granted, there are some services actually requiring open ports, but the majority don’t (and you mention a webserver, where we’re definitely back to: why open anything beyond 443?).
Client side, under advanced:
That’s a setting
ALright, thanks for the recommendation :) And yeah, “weird” and “metal” are good descriptions. Additionally, the backstory we got in S1 was definitely “fire”.
I liked the first 80% of the first season, and stopped watching halfway into S02E01. Is it worth continuing? Do we get any answers? Are they satisfying?
Alright, thanks for the info, that’s good to know. Trying to make the jump becomes more enticing every day.
Thanks for sharing! Sounds about as good/bad as I was expecting. How’s the browser experience? Also, are there any features/tweaks you are aware of that you could not get through Nix, that the more “commercial” Linux device manufacturers have developed for their devices?
Holy crap! A NixOS-on-phone user in the wild! You are rocking my dream setup. How’s your experience been with it? Is it remotely daily drivable for phone things?
+1 for Kagi though. Kagi is awesome.
See kids? This is why you never poke the pencil all the way up your nose.
Ja, worauf ich raus will: bei mir ist das Glas gleichbedeutend mit "lokaler Kleinimker’
Do not