this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2026
33 points (88.4% liked)

Selfhosted

54576 readers
760 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.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's the first idea I had when it came to making sure login on my server is secure. Instead of having a small password that relies on my fallinble memory and may be also guessed in a not-completely-rodiculous amount of time.

Meanwhile a fairly small file, something like a 512 byte "user.key", to be uploaded along with your username, or even just having your username built-in, seems much safer.

I wanted to do some math but I could only find limited calculators for doing calculations with such big numbers so have the amount of possible combinations the file may have:

256^5121,044,388,881,413,152,506,691,752,710,716,624,382,579,964,249,047,383,780,384,233,483,283,953,907,971,557,456,848,826,811,934,997,558,340,890,106,714,439,262,837,987,573,438,185,793,607,263,236,087,851,365,277,945,956,976,543,709,998,340,361,590,134,383,718,314,428,070,011,855,946,226,376,318,839,397,712,745,672,334,684,344,586,617,496,807,908,705,803,704,071,284,048,740,118,609,114,467,977,783,598,029,006,686,938,976,881,787,785,946,905,630,190,260,940,599,579,453,432,823,469,303,026,696,443,059,025,015,972,399,867,714,215,541,693,835,559,885,291,486,318,237,914,434,496,734,087,811,872,639,496,475,100,189,041,349,008,417,061,675,093,668,333,850,551,032,972,088,269,550,769,983,616,369,411,933,015,213,796,825,837,188,091,833,656,751,221,318,492,846,368,125,550,225,998,300,412,344,784,862,595,674,492,194,617,023,806,505,913,245,610,825,731,835,380,087,608,622,102,834,270,197,698,202,313,169,017,678,006,675,195,485,079,921,636,419,370,285,375,124,784,014,907,159,135,459,982,790,513,399,611,551,794,271,106,831,134,090,584,272,884,279,791,554,849,782,954,323,534,517,065,223,269,061,394,905,987,693,002,122,963,395,687,782,878,948,440,616,007,412,945,674,919,823,050,571,642,377,154,816,321,380,631,045,902,916,136,926,708,342,856,440,730,447,899,971,901,781,465,763,473,223,850,267,253,059,899,795,996,090,799,469,201,774,624,817,718,449,867,455,659,250,178,329,070,473,119,433,165,550,807,568,221,846,571,746,373,296,884,912,819,520,317,457,002,440,926,616,910,874,148,385,078,411,929,804,522,981,857,338,977,648,103,126,085,903,001,302,413,467,189,726,673,216,491,511,131,602,920,781,738,033,436,090,243,804,708,340,403,154,190,336

What am I missing? I assume I'm missing something, because the idea of something like this going over a lot of smart programmers and developers' heads does not sound right

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's a pain to manage. If you want to change it, you have to go to each server and update it manually, if you don't already have automation. If you do have automation, that's another thing you have to set up and manage. And all that for not much gain.

[–] kumi@feddit.online 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Not if you use certificates signed by your own internal CA and trust the CA instead of straight up trusting the public keys explicitly.

This way you can generate new SSH or TLS keys trusted across a bunch of machines without having to touch those machines directly for every key, since they are signed by your trusted authority. If you configure CRLs properly you can also revoke them centrally.

[–] UnpledgedCatnapTipper@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If you do have automation, that's another thing you have to set up and manage.

Hosting a CA is a whole additional service to set up, as is enabling trust for said CA on every server you're running.

[–] kumi@feddit.online 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

A CA can be an encrypted volume on a live USB stick. It's mostly for the CRLs you might want something online. A static HTTP server where you manually dump revocations is enough for that.

Unless you do TOFU (which some do and btw how often do you actually verify the github.com ssh fingerprint when connecting from a new host?), you need to add the trust root in some way, just as with any other method discussed. But that's no more work than doing the same with individual host keys.

And what's the alternative? Are you saying it's less painful to log in and manually change passwords for every single server/service when you need to rotate?