Pika

I was originally going to add that usually different services can use the same name as long as there’s no overlap, but you can’t even use that on this one because they’re both blogging platforms.

Yeah, unless they have authorization from the original project this is likely going to require a name change.

Said backdoor isn’t possible with the current day key exchange process. Without the servers in use private key, the most law agencies can do without acquiring the private key is force the CA to revoke a cert, which will disallow properly configured clients from accessing and transferring data with the server.

LE doesn’t have enough information to recreate the private key based off the public key, the only key distributed during the CSR process is the servers public key via a certificate signing request which is signed using your private key, which the CA then signs with it’s own intermediate key (which is signed by it’s root server certificate) and hands back to the private server.

The CA doesn’t have the ability to create that private key, and as such doesn’t have a way to decrypt traffic that is using that key. There is no concern for a backdoor in that process.

In order for the “backdoor” to exist, they would need to either copy the private key as part of the signing process (which it doesn’t), or somehow force the server admin to use a new private key (that the CA also holds) or somehow compromise the servers key generation process to allow for an escrow on the private key when it was generated which would allow the CA to be able to recreate the private key using the master & public key.

Now don’t take me wrong, you can still have a MiTM impersonation attack or a full impersonation bypass by the CA issuing a new certificate and having the DNS registrar have the web address go to a new server that is using the new key but, that’s not something the CA alone has the capability of doing, and any traffic that is issued to the original server still wouldn’t be compromised, its just clients visiting your site will end up at the other site and as such will end up using keys that the other side generated instead of your own keys and additionally said new keys would also be appearing in Certificate transparency logs, or modern day clients would refuse to use them.

I don’t think anyone’s going to solve the problem in general, to be honest.

Like, Let’s Encrypts goal is super novel, but also expensive as shit to actually run, and requires a lot of coordination because it needs to be a trust authority. If this ever happened, it would probably be at the backing of some government structure, because I don’t see many people wanting to jump at that at an expense.

Is this accurate? Like, I know what you’re meaning, but I’m pretty sure it’s not ICANN doing it, and more so your domain registrar handing it over to the US government.

I think the most control that ICANN has over it is they could theoretically, if they wanted to, delete an entire top level domain. Since they do control the DNS root, but that is the most that they control from what I understand.

I don’t know if they have the ability to delete or transfer control over an individual domain on legal request. I think that’s outside of what their actual system allows for.

I use proxmox on one server, but currently my layout is:

• docker 1:
  • Authentik first network
  • heimdall
  • immich
  • jellyfin
  • NPM first network
  • zipline
• docker 2:
  • authentik second network
  • npm second network
  • blorp
  • gitlab-runner
  • ladder
  • metube
  • photon
  • privatebin
  • tandoor
  • bar assistant
  • sponsor block

LXCS:

• database server
• pihole
• wireguard
• mail server (postfix/dovecot)
• zoneminder
• zabbix
• gitlab
• matrix
• xmpp/openfire
• revolt/stoat
• gamevox (temporary)
• pufferpanel - minecraft
• pufferpanel - ark
• palworld
• discord development container
• projects container

VMs:

• homeassistant
• ipa server
• firewall
• Syncthing / immich storage / PXE server/ File storage

Also thank you for making this post, it helped me realize I have a few containers and services I don’t use and I don’t think have activity on them anymore so I can start a deprecation cycle on them lol

I use proxmox on one server, but currently my layout is:

• docker 1:
  • Authentik first network
  • heimdall
  • immich
  • jellyfin
  • NPM first network
  • zipline
• docker 2:
  • authentik second network
  • npm second network
  • blorp
  • gitlab-runner
  • ladder
  • metube
  • photon
  • privatebin
  • tandoor
  • bar assistant
  • sponsor block

LXCS:

• pihole
• wireguard
• mail server (postfix/dovecot)
• zoneminder
• zabbix
• gitlab
• matrix
• xmpp/openfire
• revolt/stoat
• gamevox (temporary)
• pufferpanel - minecraft
• pufferpanel - ark
• palworld
• discord development container
• projects container VMs:
• homeassistant
• ipa server
• firewall
• Syncthing / immich storage / PXE server/ File storage

Also thank you for making this post, it helped me realize I have a few containers and services I don’t use and I don’t think have activity on them anymore so I can start a deprecation cycle on them lol

As someone who ran Ubuntu server for a few years before moving to Debian. I would recommend Debian over Ubuntu just because I have had to do less maintenance with it. When I was on Ubuntu updating it was a constant concern of “will something change that is bad” for example they pushed the kernel live patch and the Ubuntu subscription banner as an update instead of an upgrade, so I updated as normal, and there it was.

I dislike OS’s that install new packages as part of their update procedures (an update that installs a new package instead of replacing an existing one should be reserved for upgrades), and Debian has never done that with me, so Debian is where I stay.

I’m honestly surprised that since there was no plan for a little big planets 4, and a little big planet 3 had 1, 2, and 3, that they didn’t just release only the levels data, that way that people could run fan services.

It wouldn’t really cost all that much extra because they would only have to keep the data available for a week or two, and then the community would then keep it alive via torrents or their own off-site storage.

It is a toggle. they just locked said toggle behind a 24 hour time lock. It’s ridiculous. I think if they kept it the way it was without said time lock it wouldn’t be anywhere near as controversial.

it’s actually the recommended way if you use jellyfin, theres a few security/privacy vulnerabilities with publicly exposing the jellyfin server anyway, they are being worked on but, the safest way to do it is just use a vpn regardless.

I’m not sure, I was running 2.7.5 myself but i am not sure what version of immich I started with. I didn’t think this would effect fully docker setups much. I think this would mostly effected people who had configured with a preexisting database. I believe the docker edition with postgres built in upgraded for you awhile back unless you supplied an environment variable telling it to do otherwise.

you’re welcome, glad it worked for your use case.

Rsync is an insane tool when you look at it, half the flags you wouldn’t even know existed unless you were looking for them.

hey everyone gotta learns somewhere, and defo don’t expect you’ll ever stop learning on this adventure. That’s part of what makes this hobby fun!

is there any reason in particular that you are using both SSHFS and rsync? Rsync supports sftp which runs over an ssh connection via rsync -e ssh source dstUser@dstHost:/path

if you are only using the sshfs system to allow a local ssh directory on your system to use with rsync, you could likely skip that entire part and just use rsync.

LinuxConfig.org has a pretty decent page on it

As an FYI to people who are upgrading and use a preexisting postgres database If you still use pgvecto.rs (if the command \dx on the immich database responds with vectors not vector) you will need to install both pgvector and vectorchord in order to continue using immich. This will require restarting your postgres instance at least once if not twice.

It threw me for a loop at first because of the similar naming. Just thought I would share.

Yea hopefully. I know that short lived certs is currently an additional parameter when requesting, hopefully when the default changes they will have a higher rate limit. That won’t be for quite some time though I expect.

I wasn’t aware of that they managed registered domains the way they do. I may need to reconcider my certificate setup currently, as I currently run a certificate per service because its more secure and looked cleaner, but if they count x.website.com certificates as website.com certificates, its entirely possible that when they switch to short lived certificate defaults I may come close to that rate limit.

If the part is on par with non-Chinese counterparts at a cheaper price, definitely

this right here. If you have immich setup behind a reverse proxy, just route any requests that use the /share/ and /s/ (the custom link version) on the proxy manager to route to the immich instance, and have it 403 on anything else when the request is not via the vpn

Just be aware that immich uses links like share-* as well so be sure to have that trailing / to make it so only shared links and albums can be.

edit: Actually looking into this route further, it looks like immich as a whole needs more than just the /share/ and the /s/ endpoints exposed to function correctly. I will update this in a little when i figured out more on what is actually needed

update: So it seems immich will not support this style setup without quite a bit of hands on. You need to give at minimum /share/, /s/, /_app/ and /api/ in order to actually go this route. and at that point since you’ve given /api/ you’ve essentially publicly opened the instance anyway. While you can go through and individually do each endpoint. It requires access to /api/albums /api/assets and a few other endpoints, these endpoints do seem to need auth or some form of verification tho

for anyone wanting to still go through with it. You can reverse proxy it by allowing the endpoints

• _app/ a bunch of immich internal files for serving content
• api/
  • server/
    • config: shows basic infomation about the server
    • media-types: shows what media types the server supports
    • features: discloses what features the server supports
  • shared-links/me: 401, 403’s or shows what links the user account can sign into
  • albums/: 403’s on any album endpoint that doesn’t also include the album’s public slug in the URL
  • timeline/
    • buckets: displays timeline buckets. 401 or 403’s on no auth
    • bucket/: displays timeline info on the requested resource. 401 or 403’s on info unless info is provided about what its trying to access
  • assets/: 401 or 403’s on any request that doesn’t contain a public slug in the url

The nginx location regex I used for my testing(although not very read friendly) was

location ~ /(api/(server/(config|media-types|features)|shared-links/me|albums/|timeline/(bucket|buckets)|assets/)|(share|s)|_app/){
  proxy_pass *immich instance*;
}

note: this was found just by basic testing using NPM on my environment, I may have missed some more specific calls especially regarding videos as I don’t really do any video photography to allow for testing.

Additional note: You may end up confusing your users with the UI though, as since lets you click on the immich banner to get to login, but everything would be blocked. You may just want to use the immich public project that was linked later in this discussion…

If it’s running as root anyway, then I change my statement. No I don’t see any security risk with it. Patchmon is running as root anyway, so no matter what your permissions are on the links or the original sock, as long as it’s smart enough to follow the link it should be fine. Generally symlinks follow the same permission as their target, with the exception of changing its owner with chown or removing it. I.E they are going to almost always just be whatever the permission of the target is. So your /var/run/docker.sock is going to be whatever permissions your /run/user/{userid}/docker.sock is normally and since patchmon is running as the root user, it’s not going to care what permissions are present as root overrides all restrictions/permissions anyway.

I have my concerns that patchmon might try to change docker files while as the root user, which could create files that docker couldn’t read but since it seems to be using the docker sock anyway, I expect it’s just going to operate over the sock which means it would be using dockers built in system which would be using its docker user.