Wander

@RegalPotoo Maybe I should have been more specific in the wording of my title.

No one planning on hosting public multi-user service that would see some serious traffic would probably benefit from hosting on a phone.

Someone who wants to simply run a single-user instance or their personal nextcloud? I think that's a real possibility.

@TCB13 I'm not an expert in the matter but I wonder how large the attack surface actually is for a web service that has a single port exposed via a tunnel which can even contribute to doing some security filtering.

The application / server component can actually be updated since it's just an APK. And someone else in this thread actually linked to whole linux distros that can be installed and run without root. In theory even if the underlying OS is insecure, more secure OSes can be installed on top, or risk can be severely limited by only exposing a single port.

Basically, while flashing a new ROM would be ideal, I think there's likely a way in which a sandboxed and possibly even updated environment with updated TLS cyphers, CA stores, etc... can be run in a secure manner on top of a stock Android ROM.

Furthermore, developers packaging their apps into APKs could run security checks and by the time it says "your OS is insecure" you're already on your third phone and can host stuff on your second. I mean... Android phones are in their prime for two/three years at most in my experience :P

@AMS @selfhosted yes, hopefully we'll see an explosion in self-hostable alternatives that can be installed as easily as syncthing.

@ahoyboyhoy @selfhosted Nice. I remember trying it out once. Actually I might use that to follow my own advice and self-host at home once I retire my current phone.

True, I haven't had the need because I know how to run stuff on a server, but for personal files it's probably better to host things at home.

@fediverse I've read that this is called an overlay network. Unfortunately many of the ones I've seen documented focus on keeping things in their own private networks which is okay but not fun.

ULA addresses require no permission and were designed precisely to knit together private networks. We can just use domain names and convert them via checksum into a static ULA /48 prefix. DNS can be used to announce routes, or eventually something more BGP-like given that ownership of a domain can be verified and thus authorization to announce routes.

If domains ever become a bottleneck one could use private TLDs with some consensus mechanism and even create multi-layer networks this way where packmates.layer.1 and packmates.layer.2 are two different networks even though they might have the same address range.

Anyways, I'll go out and touch some grass now.

@nysepho @fediverse there would be routing without being peered directly by delegating your endpoint to another peer you trust (this can create an infinitely long routing chain depending on where you latch on so to speak, but you would be in control)

@breadsmasher I have no idea how Tor works. In this case I would say most peers would have no problem disclosing a public IP, but it could have benefits in making resources in a private network accessible and as long as the endpoint can be reached those resources would be hosting provider agnostic.

I would say this is less about hiding user activity than it is about logical networks, abstracting away the hosting provider and allowing to knit together self hosted services, regardless of where they are hosted.