this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
64 points (97.1% liked)

Selfhosted

40246 readers
765 users here now

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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
64
What do you guys do about usernames / passwords for your local services? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by AMillionMonkeys@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Basically every local service is accessed via a web interface, and every interface wants a username and password. Assuming none of these services are exposed to the internet, how much effort do you put into security here?
Personally, I didn't really think about it when I started. I make a half-assed effort at security where I don't use "admin" or anything obvious as the username, and I use a decent-but-not-industrial password - but I started reusing the u/p as the number of services I'm running grew. I have my browsers remember the u/ps.
Should one go farther than this? And if so, what's the threat model? Is there an easier way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Is ipv6 that bad.

I keep hearing there is no real benefit and risk to it?

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

Ipv6 is fantastic, it has less overhead than v4 and removes the need for NAT or other translation. Support can be spotty in cheaper and older devices but there's no reason not to learn and adopt it where possible.

[–] DaGeek247@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

You have to take extra steps to ensure that the benefits of NAT aren't lost when you switch to ipv6. Everyone knowing exactly which device you're using because a single ipv6 IP per-device is the default.

Ipv6 is nice, but also you need to know what you're doing to get all the benefits without any of the downsides.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Most devices generate a random IPv6 address and change it frequently. Your browser fingerprint is much more useful for device tracking than your IP address anyways.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

+1, your list of browser extensions, list of plugins and list of available fonts are also available to anyone trying to fingerprint you. This idea that NAT will somehow obscure you enough to be anonymous online is security voodoo.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)