Selfhosted

46653 readers

1074 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:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

417

Let’s Encrypt Begins Supporting IP Address Certificates (linuxiac.com)

submitted 1 day ago by KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Who benefits from this? Even though Let’s Encrypt stresses that most site operators will do fine sticking with ordinary domain certificates, there are still scenarios where a numeric identifier is the only practical choice:

Infrastructure services such as DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) – where clients may pin a literal IP address for performance or censorship-evasion reasons.
IoT and home-lab devices – think network-attached storage boxes, for example, living behind static WAN addresses.
Ephemeral cloud workloads – short-lived back-end servers that spin up with public IPs faster than DNS records can propagate.

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

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Couldn't this prove very troublesome in combination with carrier grade nat?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

They will require the requester to prove they control the standard http(s) ports, which isn't possible with any nat.

It won't work for such users, but also wouldn't enable any sort of false claims over a shared IP.

[–] melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't see how? Normal HTTP/TLS validation would still apply so you'd need port forwarding. You can't host anything on the CGNAT IP so you can't pass validation and they won't issue you a cert.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

You can totally host something on carrier-grade NAT using techniques like NAT hole punching.

[–] deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de 5 points 13 hours ago

You don't get control of the incoming port that way. For LetsEncrypt to issue a certificate primarily intended for HTTPS, they will check that the HTTP server on that IP is owned by the requesting party. That has to live on port 80, which you can't forward on CGNAT.