this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
76 points (95.2% liked)

Selfhosted

40173 readers
1081 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
 

For folks that are unable to port forward on the local router (eg CGNAT) I made this post on doing it via a VPS. I've scoured the internet and didn't find a complete guide.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

tl;dr: classic convenience/privacy. depends on your threat model. surely better than Google. models of zero trust will help.

That's a great question, that I have asked myself before too. It doesn't have one answer, and any one would make their own choices based on their own respective threat model. I'll answer you with some of my thoughts, and why I do use their services.

I'll take as an example my usage of NextCloud, coming as a replacement to Google Drive for example.

let's break up the setups:

  1. client (mobile app, desktop client, browser)
  2. communication to server
  3. server

It's oversimplified, but to the point: In Google's setup, you have control of 0 out of three things.

  1. you use their closed source client, 2. they decide the communication to the server (if there's any CDN, where their servers located, TLS version), and 3. data is on their servers, wether encrypted or not is up to them.

In NextCloud's setup,

  1. The clients are open source (you can varify them, or build your own),
  2. communication to server is up to you. and in this case you trust your data with CF, that's right. gonna have to trust them.
  3. server is your server, and you encrypt the files how you want.

From just this look, NC is clearly better off. now, it's not perfect, and each one will do their own convenience vs privacy deal and decide their deal.

If you deploy some sort of e2ee, the severity level of CF drops even more, because they're exposed to less data. specifically for NC they do do e2ee, but each solution to its own. https://nextcloud.com/encryption/ this goes as an example for zero trust model. if you handle the encryption yourself (like using an e2ee service), you don't have to trust the medium your data is going through. like the open internet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

surely better than Google

This contradicts your threat model comment, though. If you fear Google's access to your data, you fear nation states, or hate Google. Cloudflare is in the same boat for size, scope, and US ownership.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Obviously I'm not avoiding it all together, but I'm taking a step in the right direction.

And it's not just replacing Google by CF, because CF has much less access in comparison as I explain.

you can deploy some zero trust models in your setup, and eliminate the threat even further. for example end to end encryption

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh yes, wasn't trying to say it was a bad decision at all. If it fits your threat model, and it makes life easier, it's probably the right choice.

load more comments (2 replies)