You are right about that a reverse proxy does not protect. But I can not relate that with security through obscurity.
Comment on Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoThe self-hosted crowd thinks reverse proxies protect you from the Internet. Don’t expect too much of them.
lIlIllIlIIIllIlIlII@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
There’s also a big brigading problem with going against the “common knowledge” of Lemmy. Brave can do no good. Reverse proxy on the internet and you’re secure. Etc.
That your comment is downvoted and barely debated speaks volumes to Lemmy as actual discourse.
qaz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s being downvoted with little relatively little discourse because it’s an insult with no relevance to the topic, in addition to supporting a comment from someone who is either trolling or has no idea what they’re talking about
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
The selfhosted guys are correct with that. Of course its not a magic pill, but it can help to minimize the attack surface immensely with little effort.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
See what I mean?
As if a proxy blindly passing traffic directly to a backend server “reduces attack surface” in any meaningful way. 🙄
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
Did you just add ‘blindly passing traffic’ to your statement? Did you read my comment about can help?
Move on, joker.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Sorry - which part of your comment added anything of value? “can help to minimize the attack surface”? 99% of the time a proxy just passes traffic through. Unless you’re talking about a WAF which is a) a different thing and b) NOT what any home gamers are talking about when they recommend nginx, traefic, etc. to newbs.