lavander

@lavander@lemmy.dbzer0.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it possible to have a usable domain without a VPS or a static IP address?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  For sure, you need a public (dynamic) IP for this.

  NAT sucks, been there, done that… ugh! And, yeah, nothing can be done short of some sort of proxing that adds latency and unreliability

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it possible to have a usable domain without a VPS or a static IP address?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  You need static IP only if you want to host the autoritative DNS server for your domain (spoiler alert: you don’t).

  You don’t need to proxy your traffic via VPS (higher latency for no good reason) and the dyndns providers are over priced.

  What you need is:

  • Buy your domain
  • Use a free DNS provider (I used for years the excellent dns.he.net but it is a bit cumbersome. Nowadays I gave up and I now use cloudflare without any proxying, just pure DNS)
  • Point your registrar to the dns provider
  • use ddclient to update the IP of a domain entry (e.g. server.example.com)
  • add as many CNAME as you want that point to that entry (so you can have stuff like Jellyfin.example.com www.example.com Nextcloud.example.com)

  That’s all… ddclient will update that single dns entry every time your server restarts (or the IP lease expires and you get a new IP)

  The only thing you need to pay here is the domain (you can get free domains but that is another story and tbh I would not recommend, there are cheap domains out of there)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The "western hemisphere" rubs me the wrong way⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The only explanation I have is dog whistle for some sort of “western supremacy“ 🙄

• The "western hemisphere" rubs me the wrong way
  Submitted ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨showerthoughts@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨21⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Consumer hardware is no longer a priority for manufacturers⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  ChromeOS was exactly mean for that

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lawsuit Alleges That WhatsApp Has No End-to-End Encryption⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah and I think it’s a pity. It’s the byproduct of “app culture” everything has to be easy. One button, plug and play…

  Unfortunately like many things in life “saving” (time and effort n this case) has a cost

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lawsuit Alleges That WhatsApp Has No End-to-End Encryption⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Unfortunately even the best intentioned and best audited project can be compromised. So that is not a guarantee (sure, much better than closed source but that is a given)

  You may be forced by a rubber hose attack (or legal one) to insert vulnerabilities in your code… and you have the traffic… a single point to attack… signal/proton/etc

  Is it possible with two different vendors? Sure it is but it is way more complicated

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lawsuit Alleges That WhatsApp Has No End-to-End Encryption⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Call me old fashioned but I really think that for real E2EE the vendor of the encryption and the vendor of the infrastructure should be two different entities.

  For example PGP/GPG on <any mail provider>… great! Proton? Not great

  Jabber/XMMP with e2ee encryption great! WhatsApp/Telegram/signal… less so (sure I take signal over the other two every day… but it’s enough to compromise a single entity for accessing the data)