this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
43 points (97.8% liked)

Selfhosted

40296 readers
220 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.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello,

Just spent a good week installing my home server. Time to pause and lookback to what I've setup and ask your help/suggestions as I am wondering if my below configuration is a good approach or just a useless convoluted approach.

I have a Proxmox instance with 3 VLAN:

  • Management (192.168.1.x) : the one used by proxmox host and that can access all other VLANs

  • Servarr (192.168.100.x) : every arr related software + Jellyfin (all LXC). All outbound connectivity goes via VPN. Cant access any VLAN

  • myCloud (192.168.200.X): WIP, but basically planning to have things like Nextcloud, Immich, Paperless etc...

The original idea was to allow external access via Cloudlfare tunnel but finally decided to switch back to Tailscale for "myCloud" access (as I am expected to share this with less than 5 accounts). So:

  • myCloud now has Tailscale running on it.
  • myCloud can now access Servarr VLAN

Consequently to my choice of using tailscale, I had now to use a DNS server to resolve mydomain.com:

  • Servarr now has pihole as DNS server reachable across all VLAN

On the top of all that I have yet another VLAN for my raspberry Pi running Vaultwarden reachable only via my personal tailscale account.

I'm open to restart things from scratch (it's fun), so let me know.

Also wondering if using LXCs is better than docker especially when it comes to updates and longer term maintenance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not saying physical switches are needed for security, which is why I was asking for clarification. Doing all of this on a router doesn't make sense without a physical separation though. That's my point. If the router gets owned, they have access to all networks anyway. If the idea is just for traffic direction and shaping, then I'm confused why the bridged pihole.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Doing all of this on a router doesn't make sense without a physical separation though

I'm going to have to say, I have zero idea why you would suggest this for something that is logical, and specifically not physical.

Logical separations and vlan segregation for trust models is standard practice (though hopefully more will trend towards a zero trust model, but irrelevant here). There is zero need for any physical separation. What are you talking about?

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Friend...you clearly are not reading what I'm saying. Not one single sentence that I've typed suggested there needs to be, or ever was a physical separation. That is why this setup without clarification doesn't make much sense if security is the goal.

You are saying exactly what I'm saying and arguing about it for some reason.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your first sentence was about physical switches...

There already is a logical separation that makes perfect sense - out through VPN with no network access initiated by that VLAN to the other two internal. That'd a security step that's pretty clear and valid off the bat.

So again - I don't follow anything of what you're driving at, no. Because from the first sentence in your first comment forward isn't making any sense.

Please, clarify, because I don't know why you'd even bring up different switches for an extremely basic logical separation.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

VLAN on a singular router without physical separation is not secure. OP was asking for feedback, that's my feedback. It's accurate.

[–] athes@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Thx for the feedback, I don't have multiple router no. If I had would it be still called VLAN? I thought the V was Virtual for achieving that LAN segmentation with one router. With one router, don't you think the security added is the same level as configuring a firewall on each VM/LXC ?

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

Your understanding is correct.

Multiple routers is irrelevant and ridiculous.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well it wouldn't matter if your router is the thing that someone gets into. All you're doing is separate traffic in different subnets, and if that's your goal, you're good to go.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You are aware that a firewall rule is how you would address - in software, with logic - someone trying to get from VLAN C to VLAN A, right?

That its part of the method you'd use as a layer of security to prevent someone gaining access to.your router?

Assuming the router is compromised from the start is similarly just nutso.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are aware that being on the router would have access to ALL the ingress and egress interfaces, right?

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not how any of this works.... At all.

No, its managed by the firewall. The existence of a VLAN does not grant it access to egress. The firewall needs to permit that behavior.

Your entire understanding of how a logical network works is wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick - this is just really bad information that you're sharing.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

JFC 🤦

How are you NOT understanding what OP thinks is happening, versus what you thinks is happening?

If I get shell access to this router I have access to ALL NETWORKS. VLAN won't help any of this.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

HOW WOULD YOU GET SHELL ACCESS TO HIS ROUTER FROM A FIREWALLED OFF VLAN THAT DOES NOT GAIN ACCESS TO THE MANAGEMENT VLAN THE ROUTER IS ON.

Holy crap dude.

BASIC networking.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lolz at you. Sweet baby Jesus, you have no idea.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Take a networking class instead of spewing nonsense please.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Take your own advice: https://www.n-able.com/fr/blog/vlan-hopping-security

For some reason you think a home router can't be gotten into because of a VLAN of all things🤣

You're sitting here worrying about some packets from the internet being safe for some reason and not realizing the big picture. Go back to Innernette learning school, tough guy.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Take a networking class. You have numerous fundamental misunderstandings and make wild assumptions on bridging gaps that has specific requirements to occur, which also requires a complete lack of any other security methods.

Take a networking class, please. You need it.

Edit: You're mad and still down voting, I want to point out you dont even understand the link you provided.

You should probably read that. But looooooong before then, you should take an actual class on networking.

You need it.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago

Thats my line.

I'm also done having any sort of discussion with you, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of logical network design here, and I have no interest in correcting that. Enjoy your day.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's... Insane feedback.

But sure.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Please inform me of how that's..."insane"?

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Because the overwhelming majority of multiple vlan use, and proper use at that, is going to be managed by a single firewall at the end. Because that firewall is going to manage intra and inter vlan communication, and to suggest that requires a different physical router is... Wild.

Because logical network design - regardless of egress - is a vital component of any security implementation.

Because having a multiple egress solution that doesn't rely on a software based connection (VPN) would be absolutely bonkers for a self hosted solution at home.

There are just... So many things that are absolutely buck wild crazy to me in what you've said. And not in a fun 'yee haw' kind of way, but a "boy oh boy if that could be bottled it would sell like hotcakes on the street" sort of way.