binhex Posted April 30, 2017 Author Share Posted April 30, 2017 @spall OK I bit the bullet and paid for a months worth of access to my fav Usenet provider cranked up nzbget and set encryption to yes and left the cipher field empty, then downloaded something and it went fine, full speed for my connection. So my theory is that openssl 1.1.x doesn't now support the weaker cipher your attempting to use, so try latest with no cipher defined.Sent from my LG-V500 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
spall Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) @binhex You were spot on. That never occurred to me. For reference, anyone having a similar problem, I did the following: 1) SSH into unRAID 2) docker exec -it <container-id> bash 3) openssl ciphers -v That will show you a list of the ciphers openssl supports. RC4-MD5 is indeed gone in openssl 1.1. Just need to match one up with your usenet provider (or blank works as binhex mentioned). I went with AES128-SHA and noticed no speed difference from before. Although there was a TLS handshake error right when nzbget starts, it resolves itself in a matter of seconds. Thanks binhex! Sorry you had to drop a bit of cash. Much appreciated. Edited April 30, 2017 by spall additional comment Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 Link to video walkthrough on installing and configuring nzbget, created by 'Spaceinvader One' AKA @gridrunner:- Quote Link to comment
Cessquill Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Hi - according to cAdviser, nzbget appears to be taking up 4.06GiB in my docker image. I installed as per the video above. Is this normal? Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted November 6, 2017 Author Share Posted November 6, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Cessquill said: Hi - according to cAdviser, nzbget appears to be taking up 4.06GiB in my docker image. I installed as per the video above. Is this normal? assuming cAdvisor is correct then no thats not normal, if however cAdvisor is getting confused due to the layering nature of docker images and/or calculating disk space by following symlinks then yes its probably fine. i guess a better question is have you correctly configured nzbget to write to /data for incomplete and complete downloads?. if not then downloads will be written inside the running container and you will quickly run out of space for the docker image file. Edited November 6, 2017 by binhex Quote Link to comment
Cessquill Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, binhex said: assuming cAdvisor is correct then no thats not normal, if however cAdvisor is getting confused due to the layering nature of docker images and/or calculating disk space by following symlinks then yes its probably fine. i guess a better question is have you correctly configured nzbget to write to /data for incomplete and complete downloads?. if not then downloads will be written inside the running container and you will quickly run out of space for the docker image file. Thanks for that. I think it's configured correctly, but I will double check. By default, I think that all download folders hang off the data folder, which is mapped inside one of my shares. I have only changed the settings that were recommended in the video (which made no changes to the download locations). After looking at the thread about clearing out a docker image I found lots of files inside dockers that weren't installed (I've worded that badly, but orphaned folders). I therefore recreated the image file. I'll keep an eye on it though Quote Link to comment
cmon_google_wtf Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 (edited) Hey @binhex, First off, amazing work on all of these containers. I've only just gotten started with unRaid, and am very pleased with the level of work that has been put into making everything all work together without much hassle whatsoever. That said, I am currently using your binhex-sabnzbdvpn container, but wanted to try nzbget as an alternative to compare interface and saturation rates. Is there any possibility in the future of offering a binhex-nzbgetvpn option? I see that @jshridha has a fork (docker-nzbgetvpn) but, I'm attempting to keep everything I can in (bin)house as possible for the moment while getting the server set up. Thanks again for the containers, and for your reply! ~Omni Edited April 27, 2018 by omninewb Quote Link to comment
Badboy Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Hi Guys, I'm using NZBGetVPN, nice app. Does anyone know if you can put a kill switch on this? Does it alrady have one built in? What command would I use to see what ip it is connected to just to verify it's working? Thanks Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted May 12, 2018 Author Share Posted May 12, 2018 Hi Guys, I'm using NZBGetVPN, nice app. Does anyone know if you can put a kill switch on this? Does it alrady have one built in? What command would I use to see what ip it is connected to just to verify it's working? ThanksThis is the wrong support thread, this is support for the non VPN version.Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
digiblur Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Update to the new stable version planned soon? https://nzbget.net/history-latest Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 Update to the new stable version planned soon? https://nzbget.net/history-latestIt's automated, as soon as it's available on arch repo it will be builtSent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
jj_uk Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Are you planning on adding a VPN / Privoxy version, like your Sab implementation? Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 10, 2018 Author Share Posted June 10, 2018 Are you planning on adding a VPN / Privoxy version, like your Sab implementation? No plans at the momentSent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
jj_uk Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Is it possible to tunnel the traffic through the binhex-sab vpn ? I'm not going to use this without vpn Quote Link to comment
JonathanM Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 11 minutes ago, jj_uk said: I'm not going to use this without vpn Most usenet providers offer SSL connections, which fully secure the content of the data stream. Your ISP is going to see a given quantity of traffic, regardless of whether it's through a VPN tunnel or SSL connection. What are your reasons for needing a VPN? Is it advantageous for you to mask your originating IP from your usenet provider? I'm curious if I'm missing a privacy vector here, as I've never seen a need to mask usenet traffic other than ensuring SSL transport. It's not like some random agency can insert themselves in the traffic like they can in a torrent cloud. Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 9 hours ago, jonathanm said: Most usenet providers offer SSL connections, which fully secure the content of the data stream. Your ISP is going to see a given quantity of traffic, regardless of whether it's through a VPN tunnel or SSL connection. What are your reasons for needing a VPN? Is it advantageous for you to mask your originating IP from your usenet provider? I'm curious if I'm missing a privacy vector here, as I've never seen a need to mask usenet traffic other than ensuring SSL transport. It's not like some random agency can insert themselves in the traffic like they can in a torrent cloud. usenet users are generally very cautious and slightly paranoid about privacy, the only vectors are a usenet provider who logs, and thus is logging your isp assigned ip address or real time viewing of activity by the bad guys. if you go with a descent usenet provider then you get no logging so thats that sorted, viewing real time activity at the usenet provider end, well yah possible but VERY VERY unlikely unless your a massive uploader, in short i personally would feel comfortable connecting to a usenet provider without vpn but some people may want the additional security, ive got a current count of 1 million+ downloads for sabnzbdvpn, so i guess there are lot of these out there lol :- Quote Link to comment
jj_uk Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) ISPs in the UK log all activity. That means each connection to usenet would be logged. SSL only hides the content; it doesn't hide the requests. I think theres a website called i know what you downloaded, or something like that, that shows what your IP address has downloaded. VPN also covers this case. Edited June 15, 2018 by jj_uk Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 13 minutes ago, jj_uk said: ISPs in the UK log all activity. That means each connection to usenet would be logged. SSL only hides the content; it doesn't hide the requests. sure but without knowing what content is being downloaded there is no risk, the worst a uk provider can do is block access to the usenet server, thats it. 14 minutes ago, jj_uk said: I think theres a website called i know what you downloaded, or something like that, that shows what your IP address has downloaded. VPN also covers this case. that site shows details of torrent downloads, not usenet, torrents are obviously a completely different kettle of fish. Quote Link to comment
jj_uk Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 Can the ISP see the endpoint? The request would surely contain information about what was being downloaded? I dont want to use NZB without a VPN, so is it possible to route the traffic through the SAB container? Or maybe a different OpenVPN/Privoxy 'gateway' type container, if such a thing exists (I couldn't find one). Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, jj_uk said: Can the ISP see the endpoint? The request would surely contain information about what was being downloaded? the isp would see traffic to/from the usenet servers ip and port, but thats all they would see, the rest is encrypted via ssl (assuming you use a provider that supports ssl), the isp would not have any visibility as to what was being transferred. Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, jj_uk said: I dont want to use NZB without a VPN, so is it possible to route the traffic through the SAB container? in a word no, the way i have designed it they are configured to block any external connections using ip tables, this prevents ip leakage at all times, it also means you cant start connecting to the tunnel from outside of the container (privoxy is an exception to this but only allows http/https). 15 minutes ago, jj_uk said: Or maybe a different OpenVPN/Privoxy 'gateway' type container, if such a thing exists (I couldn't find one). i dont know of one that exists that can do this. Edited June 15, 2018 by binhex Quote Link to comment
rmilyard Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 So today I noticed all my downloads are stuck unpacking. They seem to unpack, delete and then start over and over. So files never get to steps. 2 Quote Link to comment
debit lagos Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 16 hours ago, rmilyard said: So today I noticed all my downloads are stuck unpacking. They seem to unpack, delete and then start over and over. So files never get to steps. Was coming here to see if anyone else noticed that too. Did a lot of searching and it looks like there is a fix in the develop branch. 1 Quote Link to comment
rmilyard Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 1 hour ago, debit lagos said: Was coming here to see if anyone else noticed that too. Did a lot of searching and it looks like there is a fix in the develop branch. Hope a fix is released soon! Quote Link to comment
debit lagos Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 17 hours ago, rmilyard said: Hope a fix is released soon! Sent you a message. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.