this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
37 points (97.4% liked)

Selfhosted

59939 readers
415 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.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
37
How to host vaultwarden internally (feddit.org)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Linsensuppe@feddit.org to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I want to host a Vaultwarden (or Bitwarden if necessary) instance, but it keeps asking for a domain and a SSL certificate. I dont own a domain and dont want to enable port forwarding on my router to expose it to the outside.

Is it possible to host a instance only internally and access it via the IP or a domain set on my local DNS? How about SSL is it possible and/or necessary?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Buy an xyz domain for like $1. If you choose a domain that just 9 random numbers its super cheap.

So something like 123456789.xyz

Then setup a SWAG container with DNS challenge. Join vaultwarden into the same docker network as SWAG, then add an entry to your router to point to vaultwarden using a subdomain.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If it's just a bunch of numbers, why not just use the ip address?

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

TLS.

While technically you can use TLS with a self signed certificate, it creates additional problems with a public facing service. Only recommended for internal services.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Other than having accept a self signed certificate, what's the problem to using the ip address? Mine hasn't changed in years.

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some self hosted services refuse to work if you use a self signed certificate with your public facing IP. They only allow self signed certificates when using one of the handful of private addresses.

Some apps on mobile devices for the service you use won't work unless a trusted certificate is used. A self signed certificate behind the scenes creates an error that isn't handled and you can't connect.

You lose the ability to have a proxy in front to handle abuse so your server is spared the headache. You need a domain to do this.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's an ecosystem defect that you need a dns name paid subscription to use "institutionally sanctified" certificates.

My stuff should be made to still work in the apocalypse when San Francisco and Silicon Valley are underwater radioactive craters.

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's an industry security standard. Not a defect. If you don't agree with it, fork the software and modify it to suit your needs.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You mean fork every https browser and server? With hookers and blackjack too?

[–] superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

It makes SSL certs insanely easy. $1 a year is worth it to me to not have to deal with self signed certs.