486

Another option is subpaths: xyz.ddns.net/portainer

While you can do that, you should be aware of the security implications (every application can see and modify every other application’s cookies). If at all possible, I would try to avoid this setup.

Oh, I didn’t want to suggest that there is no value in using a reverse-proxy, there certainly is. Just don’t expect it to do anything for you in terms of application security. The application behind it is just as exposed as it would be without a proxy. So if there was a security flaw in that application, the reverse-proxy does not help at all.

I am not sure where this idea comes from, but putting a service behind a reverse-proxy does not increase its security in any way, unless you’d do authentication right at the reverse-proxy.

No, even the earliest Ryzens support ECC reporting just fine, given the motherboard used supports it, which many boards do. Only the non-Pro APUs do not support ECC.

You were talking about adversaries discovering the backdoor. That’s something entirely different from compromised keys. So your sacrasm is quite misplaced here.

In order to successfully implement a backdoor, you need to ensure that you are more clever than your adversaries, because those same backdoors can be used against you.

In this instance, that’s not the case. Only those in possession of the right key can use the backdoor. Also, discovering infected systems from the outside, appears to be impossible - the backdoor simply does not do anything to reveal itself if you don’t have the key.

Sure, cloud services can get quite expensive and I agree that using used hardware for self-hosting - if it is at least somewhat modern - is a viable option.

I just wanted to make sure, the actual cost is understood. I find it rather helpful to calculate this for my systems in use. Sometimes it can actually make sense to replace some old hardware with newer stuff, simply because of the electricity cost savings of using newer hardware.

Well, what they are stating is obviously wrong then. No need to use some website for that anyway, since it is so easy to calculate yourself.

Before anyone loses their minds, imagine you get the i3-8300T model that will peak at 25W, that’s about 0.375$ a month to run the thing assuming a constant 100% load that you’ll never have.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but even in places with very cheap electricity, it does not even come close to your claimed $0.375 per month. At 25 W you would obviously consume about 18 kWh per month. Assuming $0.10/kWh you’d pay $1.80/month. In Europe you can easily pay $0.30/kWh, so you would already pay more than $5 per month or $60 per year.

Compared to other SBCs, Raspberry Pis have been pretty inefficient for a while. A Pi 5 idles at about 3 W, which is pretty terrible for such a board, compared to other similar devices. You can get X86 PCs that idle at 3 W which are way more powerful. Other ARM SBCs use less than half that at idle and similarly less under load.

There are probably multiple reasons for that. The Pi’s SoCs have always used rather old process nodes, which are more power hungry than more modern ones used by other single board computers and PCs - 16 nm for the Pi 5 SoC and 28 nm for the Pi 4. Also, with the Pi 5 there is this additional “south bridge” chip which is attached via PCIe. This consumes additional power and for some reason the PCIe link is configured such that it never enters power saving states. I don’t know why.

Also, the power supply circuitry on the Pi 5 is far from ideal with its 5 V / 5 A power supply. Such a low voltage at such a high current can easily cause additional losses on the wire. That’s mostly relevant under high load though.

Since none of these require a Raspberry Pi to run, I would suggest using a mini PC (with an Intel N100 or similar) instead of a Pi 5. With all the accessories needed for the Pi, a mini PC can actually be cheaper and of course a lot more powerful. Since the Pi 5 is very power-inefficient, a mini PC can even be better in that regard too if that matters to you.

Especially for Jellyfin a PC with an Intel CPU with integrated GPU is awesome, since Jellyfin supports hardware transcoding with that.

Disableing the root login gains nothing in regarding security.

This is usually not the reason people recommend disabling root login. Since root is an anonymous account not tied to an actual person, in a corporate setting, you do not really know who used that account if you allow root login. If this is relevant for a personal home network is for you to decide. I would say there is not such a strong argument for it to be made in that setting.

Highly susceptible to replay and man in the middle attacks.

fwknop isn’t susceptible to either.

I was thinking about doing something similar and was considering running Android on a Raspberry Pi. There are unofficial LineageOS builds for the Raspberry Pi. I haven’t tried that yet, but I guess it should be possible to use the Jellyfin Android app on such a setup.

There is quite a significant difference. An ssh server - even when running on a non-default port - is easily detectable by scanning for it. With a properly configured Wireguard setup this is not the case. As someone scanning from the outside, it is impossible to tell if there is Wireguard listening or not, since it simply won’t send any reply to you if you don’t have the correct key. Since it uses UDP it isn’t even possible to tell if there is any service running on a given UDP port.

I always found the software updates of AVM - the manufacturer of those "Fritz!Box"es - to be of questionable quality. If you take a look at the source code that they have to release upon request of the GPL’ed source code they use, you’ll notice that they use ancient versions of the Linux kernel, Busybox and other tools. By ancient, I mean many years old, unsupported by upstream for years. Also, they only publish those sources manually when someone asks for them, which doesn’t bode well for their internal development processes. If they used CI/CD pipelines, they could easily push out updates of those sources with every new release…

This thread has some interesting details as well: https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=257144
There people managed to get idle power on a Raspberry Pi 4B to a little under 1.8 W. Interestingly, people there report that on their Pi 4’s disabling USB doesn’t do much. If I remember correctly, there were a few Pi 4 firmware updates that optimized power consumption over time. So the different firmware versions can behave differently when it comes to power consumption.

Your 2.3 W doesn’t sound too bad to begin with. Certainly better than the 5 W mentioned in the article.

Sure! Shutting down certain peripherals can reduce power consumption. The biggest difference can usually be achieved by disabling the USB controller - this is also true for the Raspberry Pi 3 (although on the Pi 3 you would also lose access to the Ethernet controller). So if you don’t use it, turn it off (and it looks like the author didn’t use any of the USB ports, so this would have been an option). Even turning of the HDMI port saves a little bit of power - it makes a difference even if no display is attached. A tiny bit of power can also be saved by turning off the LEDs. I also tried lowering the CPU clock, but that didn’t result in a noticable difference in idle power consumption.

At the moment I don’t currently have a Pi 4 on hand to experiment with, but I do have a Raspberry Pi 4 Compute Module (CM4) on a very minimalistic carrier board and with that I am able to idle at about 1.3 W.

Always nice to see solar projects, although I wonder why the author didn’t try to lower the Pi’s power consumption. This would have been the first thing I would have done when trying to optimize things. 5 W is quite a lot for a Raspberry Pi and there are a couple of things one can do to lower its power consumption.

Getting certs from Let’s Encrypt should work fine with any provider, even if you can’t open any ports, since they do support DNS challenge.