I didn’t realise they have unprotected streams 👀

usually cable channels lock down their streams pretty well, with CDN URLs that either expire or have a single-use token in them.

If you’re not getting 100% full strength signal, it is literally unwatchable.

It depends… Sometimes it’s terrible, while other times even low signal strength is fine. I only get around 65% signal strength and 75% signal quality for one channel (ABC, I think?), and it still works fine with no stuttering.

I use a HDHomeRun TV tuner, so I can place the antenna where I get the best signal, and the HDHomeRun transmits it over my LAN.

At least NBC is a broadcast station, so you can watch it for free using an antenna. I have an indoor antenna in my garage, connected to a HDHomeRun.

Both of those documents agree with me? RedHat are just using the terms “client” and “server” to make it easier for people to understand, but they explicitly say that all hosts are “peers”.

Note that all hosts that participate in a WireGuard VPN are peers. This documentation uses the terms client to describe hosts that establish a connection and server to describe the host with the fixed hostname or IP address that the clients connect to and, optionally, route all traffic through this server.

–

Everything else is a client of that server because they can’t independently do much else in this configuration.

All you need to do is add an extra peer to the WireGuard config on any one of the “clients”, and it’s no longer just a client, and can connect directly to that peer without using the “server”.

There’s no such thing as a client or server with Wireguard. All systems with Wireguard installed are “nodes”. Wireguard is peer-to-peer, not client-server.

You can configure nftables rules to route through a particular node, but that doesn’t really make it a server. You could configure all nodes to allow routing traffic through them if you wanted to.

If you run Wireguard on every device, you can configure a mesh VPN, where every device can directly reach any other device, without needing to route through an intermediary node. This is essentially what Tailscale does.

Wow, this is very useful!!

a program that runs as root

Does it have to run as root? It’s common to run Docker in rootless mode in production environments.

You might be interested in StirlingPDF too.

you can override this by setting an IP on the port exposed so thet a local only server is only accessable on 127.0.0.1

Also, if the Docker container only has to be accessed from another Docker container, you don’t need to expose a port at all. Docker containers can reach other Docker containers in the same compose stack by hostname.

If you are good at manipulating iptables there is a way around this

Modern systems shouldn’t be using iptables any more.

If you don’t mind a web UI, Netdata is great. It collects a bunch of metrics once per second and can retain them for a long period of time. The web UI is pretty good. Their Github readme links to some example servers so you can try it out first. Just click the link to use it without an account (that’s optional).

It’s mainly designed for servers, but there’s no reason you couldn’t run it on a client system. They’re focusing a lot on AI/ML-based anomaly detection as well as their cloud offering at the moment, but you don’t have to use either and can just stick to the open-source agent.

why is a tower defense game listed under Automation?

and two of the most popular automation programs are missing (n8n and Node-RED).

who on earth needs customer live chat and a lot of business-scale website analytics, webshop systems and CRM and ERP in their homelab??

Maybe not in a homelab, but plenty of people self-host these. I’m setting up customer live chat (Chatwoot) and invoicing and account (Bigcapital) for my wife for example. I self-host website analytics (Plausible) and bug tracking (used to be Sentry but it got too complex to host, so now I’m trying Bugsink and Glitchtip) for my personal sites/projects, too.

Oh… Oops. Hahaha

DigiCert have said they’re not changing their prices as a result. It’s still a yearly payment (or every 2 or 3 years if you prefer that).

7-day validity is great because they’re exempt from OCSP and CRL. Let’s Encrypt is actually trying 6-day validity, not 7: https://letsencrypt.org/2025/01/16/6-day-and-ip-certs

Another feature Let’s Encrypt is adding along with this is IP certificates, where you can add an IP address as an alternate name for a certificate.

This is one of the reasons they’re reducing the validity - to try and convince people to automate the renewal process.

That and there’s issues with the current revocation process (for incorrectly issued certificates, or certificates where the private key was leaked or stored insecurely), and the most effective way to reduce the risk is to reduce how long any one certificate can be valid for.

A leaked key is far less useful if it’s only valid or 47 days from issuance, compared to three years. (note that the max duration was reduced from 3 years to 398 days earlier this year).

From https://www.digicert.com/blog/tls-certificate-lifetimes-will-officially-reduce-to-47-days:

In the ballot, Apple makes many arguments in favor of the moves, one of which is most worth calling out. They state that the CA/B Forum has been telling the world for years, by steadily shortening maximum lifetimes, that automation is essentially mandatory for effective certificate lifecycle management.

The ballot argues that shorter lifetimes are necessary for many reasons, the most prominent being this: The information in certificates is becoming steadily less trustworthy over time, a problem that can only be mitigated by frequently revalidating the information.

The ballot also argues that the revocation system using CRLs and OCSP is unreliable. Indeed, browsers often ignore these features. The ballot has a long section on the failings of the certificate revocation system. Shorter lifetimes mitigate the effects of using potentially revoked certificates. In 2023, CA/B Forum took this philosophy to another level by approving short-lived certificates, which expire within 7 days, and which do not require CRL or OCSP support.

Yes, this requirement comes from the CA/Browser Forum, which is a group consisting of all the major certificate authorities (like DigiCert, Comodo/Sectigo, Let’s Encrypt, GlobalSign, etc) plus all the major browser vendors (Mozilla, Google, and Apple). Changes go through a voting process.

Google originally proposed 90 day validity, but Apple later proposed 47 days and they agreed to move forward with that proposal.

The current plan is for the floor to be 47 days. https://www.digicert.com/blog/tls-certificate-lifetimes-will-officially-reduce-to-47-days, and this is not until 2029 in order to give people sufficient time to adjust. Of course, individual certificate authorities can choose to have lower validity periods than 47 days if they want to.

Essentially, the goal is for everyone to automatically renew the certificates once per month, but include some buffer time in case of issues.

Tailscale serve might work; I haven’t tried it so I don’t know what it’s capable of.

Usually I’d recommend getting a real domain name and using Let’s Encrypt. .com domains are around $10/year but some TLDs are even cheaper. If you don’t mind which TLD you use, go to tld-list.com and sort by renewal price.

Edit: I forgot to mention - a server does not need to be publicly exposed to use Let’s Encrypt. You can use a DNS challenge instead of a HTTP one.

Interesting! They used to have a warning about it. I guess they removed it at some point. It’s referenced in this discussion for example: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/13008