aterfax

Members
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aterfax

  1. Safe mode? Or is there a specific way to do so? Removed all plugins - now have access via chrome on my phone but not from my desktop in Edge, Chrome or Firefox. Has something like fail2ban been added that has blacklisted my IP?
  2. Upgrade results in none functional web ui. With or without SSL, page never loads after login via direct ip. No errors in nginx error.log.
  3. Also would like this feature - a proper form login page.
  4. Correct, alpha and beta test it with your users as an opt in. Everyone other company seems to be doing it and it saves the dev team a lot of time.
  5. So, exactly the same as ipv6 then? You don't need to be a net op to understand why ipv6 is better. To the security issues of ipv6 with respect to firewalls. A: firewalls are a feature that developers should enabled by default at this point and B: If you are silly enough to not use a firewall on all of your devices, let alone something that is meant to be on the wider internet you pretty much deserve the IT Darwin Award/Russian hackers on steroids. Then forgive me for being blunt, get one. You are having people pay for unraid, an OS primarily developed/used for network accessible storage and you do not have a networking specialist? Why? I understand you need to prioritise other aspects of the OS (particularly encryption - god knows I want that myself), but at the same time it sounds like you are working with little to no resources (human or otherwise) which is making jobs that might take a day or a week for a team to develop (add on the testing) take 10x that. Your demand for specific examples where apps won't work due to a lack of ipv6 is banal. It's like asking for examples where "the car will only work if we upgrade its tires." A needlessly specific example? Say I have an ipv6 VPN provider who to save costs no longer has, buys or supports ipv4 addresses. You know as well as I do as does everyone else that ipv6 is a general update none specific to any one app or service. Ultimately, my argument is about a feature that isn't 100% necessary in the same way premium gasoline isn't 100% necessarry, but it has existed for long time and I think my car should support using it. It's basically the same fuel but I can go faster, though I could accidentally explode my engine however... Your argument is, retrofitting the engine to support both will take too long (and you need to work on the alarm system anyway) and besides, until more people use the premium fuel, its just for enthusiasts. Problem is, eventually all you will have to burn is premium gasoline. You need to prioritise other things sure, I'm just salty because you shouldn't be in a position where getting ipv6 working is difficult or taking a lot of time. It should be given Slackware already has it, just integrate and blacklist the module or disable it via some of the other methods. The following is semi on topic wrt ipv6... Depends on who you think the big players are and what exactly your concerns are? State actors don't need IPV6 or IPV4 static IPs to profile individual machines behind a gateway/in a LAN. If its your general skiddie or "Russian" hacker on steroids the effect of a gateway is still fairly minimal. Gateway or not, you run a vulnerable service or device and I'll just pivot from that machine into your LAN anyway. Knowing a ipv6 machine is running a certain service or has a certain port open isn't greatly helpful compared to *some device* behind ipv4 NAT. On top of that, the general execution of infosecurity via web browsers is so weak you can easily uniquely track any individual's session across the internet irrespective via 3rd party cookies, ad networks and the unique characteristics of your browsers. In short, really you're just patching a broken dam with a band aid by avoiding ipv6. .p.s. NAT-PMP is still garbage anecdotal or not.
  6. ipv6 shouldn't be on the roadmap. I'd have thought it should be done already. Yes really unless in the meantime the IETF released ipv8. I'm not arguing about forcing electric motors into vehicles, I'm arguing the gas station should support electric recharging and petrol fuel. You could use the same argument to say that we should all be riding horses instead of using cars then. Seeing as you want evidence/ examples: https://www.sophos.com/en-us/security-news-trends/security-trends/why-switch-to-ipv6.aspx Here's a concrete example: I don't want to use NAT-PMP / forwarding because it is garbage, but I want have my plex server or other service from unraid accessible from the internet. I could use port forwarding but I'd prefer to get a unique ipv6 address for my device instead, that way I never have to fiddle with CNAMEs or update my DNS when my dynamic ip changes. Without ipv6 I am effectively forced to either buy a static IP from my ISP or port forward with DNS work. I don't want to pay £5 per month for a static (ipv4) IP so much and ipv4 addresses are only going to get more expensive.
  7. Reasons for ipv6: Makes several of the apps mentioned here function correctly. Gives a predictable unchanging address (useful for intermittent connections or ones that lack ipv4 DHCP, I actually have used it for this.) Ability for true end to end connections without NAT garbage. Various security improvements. Numerous ISPs already support this technology for customer use. Some customers do not have ipv4 NAT available. Here's a list of reasons why staff should just relent and put it in sooner rather than later: Customers are asking for it. Customers need it for certain stuff to function. It's already fully supported (as far as I know) in Slackware. You will eventually have to put it in anyway. The amount of effort that goes into supporting it argument looks like total baloney. You guys are honestly worried about editing the scripts, UI and etc...??? Ultimately you cannot believe why people are so adamant for ipv6? Because right now I think ipv6 has been available for around 10 years, pretty much every other operating system supports it, ipv4 exhaustion has already started etc... The real question here isn't why do we desperately want it, it is why is the unraid team seemingly desperate to avoid putting it in. ipv6 is effectively the standard now. Want a happy medium for now? Just make ipv6 available, those who want it can turn it on manually and configure it manually via the terminal.
  8. Odd problem here, Deluge is running, OpenVPN is running. The docker image is happily connected to the VPN provider and I can ping and curl etc... no problem and it shows the correct VPN IP address. Deluge however cannot connect to any trackers, but can connect to peers no problem and is downloading torrents ok (sans trackers.) Seeing as the docker container can connect online no problem via the VPN I have no idea what is wrong. Ideas? Edit: I suspect the provider is blocking trackers...
  9. It is odd that this is not supported. I've had some issues with OpenVPN and a server pushing ipv6 options to my unraid docker causing OpenVPN client to crash when trying to set ipv6 options on the tun adapter. The tl;dr is, this is an issue but it can be fixed by telling OpenVPN to filter the following options by adding the following config to the config file. pull-filter ignore "route-ipv6 " pull-filter ignore "ifconfig-ipv6 "