this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
496 points (99.0% liked)

Selfhosted

39251 readers
254 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] solrize@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Right, main point of my comment is that .internal is harder to use that it immediately sounds. I don't even know how to install a new CA root into Android Firefox. Maybe there is a way to do it, but it is pretty limited compared to the desktop version.

[–] cereals@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

You can't install a root CA in Firefox for android.

You have to install the cert in android and set Firefox to use the android truststore.

You have to go in Firefox settings>about Firefox and tap the Firefox logo for a few times. You then have a hidden menu where you can set Firefox to not use its internal trust store.

You then have to live with a permanent warning in androids quick setting that your traffic might be captured because of the root ca you installed.

It does work, but it sucks.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 points 1 month ago

This is not a new problem, .internal is just a new gimmick but people have been using .lan and whatnot for ages.

Certificates are a web-specific problem but there's more to intranets than HTTPS. All devices on my network get a .lan name but not all of them run a web app.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You do not have to install a root CA if you use let’s encrypt, their root certificate is trusted by any system and your requested wildcard Certificate is trusted via chain of trust

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

That's if you have a regular domain instead of.internal unless I'm mixing something. Topic of thread is .internal as if it were something new. Using a regular domain and public CA has always been possible.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They didn't make this too be easy to use. They don't give a shit about that. That isn't their job in the slightest.

They reserved a TLD, that's all.

You can use any TLD you want on your internal network and DNS and you have always been able to do that. It would be stupid to use an already existing domain and TLD but you absolutely can. This just changes so that it's not stupid to use .internal

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No one is saying it is their job.

Merely that using a TLD like .internal requires some consideration regarding ssl certificates.

[–] lud@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But why are people even discussing that?

This is about an ICANN decision. TLS has nothing to do with that. Also you don't really need TLS for self hosting. You can if you want though.

Because people can discuss whatever they like?

If you don't like it just down vote it.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

People can talk about whatever they want whenever they want. The discussion naturally went to the challenges of getting non-self-signed certificates for this new TLD. That's all.