tofubl

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago

Have your parents and siblings changed their everything as well? That's how I would try to find someone I went to school with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The answer seems to always be "not segmented enough". ;)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Haha, why do I even ask.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

This is a good hint, I'm going to take a look at that. Thank you!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I never specified, I think, and probably wasn't too clear on it myself. Thanks for your insights, I'll try to take them to my configuration now.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

This is exactly the type of answer I was looking for. Thanks a bunch.

So but in that way, having a proxy on the LAN that knows about internal services, and another proxy that is exposed publicly but is only aware of public services does help by reducing firewall rule complexity. Would you say that statement is correct?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Right, I agree with proxy exploit means compromised either way. Thanks for your reply.

I am trying to prevent the case where internal services that I don't otherwise have a need to lock down very thoroughly might get publicly exposed. I take it it's an odd question?

Re "bouncer": Expose some services publicly, not others, discriminated by host with public dns (service1.example.com) or internal dns (service2.home.example.com), is what I think I meant by it. Hence my question about one proxy for internal and one public, or one that does both.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Right, I could have been more precise. I'm talking about security risk, not resilience or uptime.

"It’ll probably be the most secure component in your stack." That is a fair point.

So, one port-forward to the proxy, and the proxy reaching into both VLANs as required, is what you're saying. Thanks for the help!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

The services run on a separate box; yet to be decided on which VLAN I put it. I was not planning to have it in the DMZ but to create ingress firewall rules from the DMZ.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (6 children)

One proxy with two NICs downstream? Does that solve the "single point of failure" risk or am I being overly cautious?

Plus, the internal and external services are running on the same box. Is that where my real problem lies?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

More like all the research teams.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

selfh.st

selfh.st is an independent publication created and curated by Ethan Sholly. [...] selfh.st draws inspiration from a number of sources including reddit's r/selfhosted subreddit, the Awesome-Selfhosted project on GitHub, and the #selfhosted/#homelab communities on Mastodon.

and also

This Week in Self-Hosted is sponsored by Tailscale, trusted by homelab hobbyists and 4,000+ companies. Check out how businesses use Tailscale to manage remote access to k8s and more.

awesome-selfhosted.net

This list is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Terms of the license are summarized here. The list of authors can be found in the AUTHORS file. Copyright © 2015-2024, the awesome-selfhosted community

view more: ‹ prev next ›