Selfhosted

39250 readers

367 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:

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!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Simple authentication for homelab? (eviltoast.org)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What's everyones recommendations for a self-hosted authentication system?

My requirements are basically something lightweight that can handle logins for both regular users and google. I only have 4-5 total users.

So far, I've looked at and tested:

Authentik - Seems okay, but also really slow for some reason. I'm also not a fan of the username on one page, password on the next screen flow
Keycloak - Looks like it might be lighter in resources these days, but definitely complicated to use
LLDAP - I'd be happy to use it for the ldap backend, but it doesn't solve the whole problem
Authelia - No web ui, which is fine, but also doesn't support social logins as far as I can tell. I think it would be my choice if it did support oidc
Zitadel - Sounds promising, but I spent a couple hours troubleshooting it just to get it working. I might go back to it, but I've had the most trouble with it so far and can't even compare the actual config yet

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, sounds like a security feature… I was able to configure Traefik to connect with TLS, verifying the peer certificate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I could do this but sadly even just the trial did not work. I'm using podman but it gives me "invalid state" just trying to login with a user per the quickstart, etc. Can't reset the password cleanly, can't add a passkey via bitwarden, etc.

Unsure if I'm doing something wrong or if it's very alpha/beta.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I didn’t have any issues, do you see anything in the logs?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

0e2475ba-882a-4f61-8938-2642ca80193b WARN     │  ┝━ 🚧 [warn]: WARNING: index "displayname" Equality was not found. YOU MUST REINDEX YOUR DATABASE
0e2475ba-882a-4f61-8938-2642ca80193b WARN     │  ┝━ 🚧 [warn]: WARNING: index "name_history" Equality was not found. YOU MUST REINDEX YOUR DATABASE
0e2475ba-882a-4f61-8938-2642ca80193b WARN     │  ┝━ 🚧 [warn]: WARNING: index "jws_es256_private_key" Equality was not found. YOU MUST REINDEX YOUR DATABASE

I had to drop it for a few days. I got that at some point though. It's all brand new so I wouldn't know why. Seems a bit rough around the edges so far. I'll try to reindex and attempt again. I really want this to be the product I use since it's a nice AIO solution but we'll see.

Edit:

[~]$ podman run --rm -i -t -v kanidm:/data \
    kanidm/server:latest /sbin/kanidmd reindex -c /data/server.toml
error: unrecognized subcommand 'reindex'

Phew boy. Straight from the docs. Same with the vacuum command.

Looks like the docs need updated to specify the command is kanidm database reindex -c /data/server.toml

And further upon trying to login...

300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO     handle_request [ 188µs | 0.00% / 100.00% ]
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO     ┕━ request [ 188µs | 72.94% / 100.00% ] method: GET | uri: /v1/auth/valid | version: HTTP/1.1
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO        ┝━ handle_auth_valid [ 50.8µs | 25.54% / 27.06% ]
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO        │  ┝━ validate_client_auth_info_to_ident [ 2.85µs | 1.51% ]
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 WARN        │  │  ┕━ 🚧 [warn]: No client certificate or bearer tokens were supplied
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 ERROR       │  ┕━ 🚨 [error]: Invalid identity: NotAuthenticated | event_tag_id: 1
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 WARN        ┕━ 🚧 [warn]:  | latency: 204.504µs | status_code: 401 | kopid: "300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605" | msg: "client error"

I think I'm gonna have to just nuke it and start fresh but yeah, this is not a great first impression at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it is a bit rough, they’re not at 1.0 yet, also: are you looking at the stable or latest docs? That may be the reason the commands do not match with the docs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I will have to check. Still willing to try again. I'll update if i get it going better on round 2.

Thanks for the hint about the docs. I hadn't thought of that.