• xcjs@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I was using .local, but it ran into too many conflicts with an mDNS service I host and vice versa. I switched to .lan, but I’m certainly not going to switch to .internal unless another conflict surfaces.

      I’ve also developed a host-monitoring solution that uses mDNS, so I’m not about to break my own software. 😅

    • chrisbit@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s also second only to .com in terms of query volume in ICANN’s Magnitude statistics with 980 mil vs .internal’s 60 mil. Not sure if that makes it a de facto standard, but it’s close.

      • anytimesoon@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m using .home and have not had any issues. Would you mind sharing what problems you’ve come across so I know what to expect?

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          The main problem I have is waking up in the middle of the night worrying that ICANN pulled some more stupid corrupt bullshit that only makes networking worse and breaks my config.

          Just look elsewhere in this thread: someone thinks that using .honk as a joke is safe. But what about .horse? .baby? .barefoot? .cool? (I stopped scrolling through the list at this point but you can see how arbitrary and idiotic things have become.)

    • dhtseany@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      I still haven’t heard a convincing argument to not use .local and I see no reason to stop.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Mainly conflicts with mDNS. However it’s shitty IMHO that the mDNS spec snarfed a domain already in widespread use, should have used .mDNS or similar.

        • xcjs@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That I agree with. Microsoft drafted the recommendation to use it for local networks, and Apple ignored it or co-opted it for mDNS.

        • x00z@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          You mean mDNS/Zeroconf are using a tld that was already being used.

        • xcjs@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Macs aren’t the only thing that use mDNS, either. I have a host monitoring solution that I wrote that uses it.

        • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Even on windows sometimes depending on the target host, I’ve had to type host.local. (Final dot to do exact match) instead of host.local

          This didn’t seem to affect other domains. I’m assuming it was due to special handling of .local

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          mDNS hasn’t been a just-Apple thing for decades. Do you still call it Ren-dess-voos like the Gaston character in Beauty and the Beast?

      • ShortFuse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’ve also used .local but .local could imply a local neighborhood. The word itself is based on “location”. Maybe a campus could be .local but the smaller networks would be .internal

        Or, maybe they want to not confuse it with link-local or unique local addresses. Though, maybe all .internal networks should be using local (private) addresses?

    • UberMentch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve had issues with .local on my Android device. Straight up doesn’t work. I had to change to .lan

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hmm, the only issue I had was because it was using the DoH (which I don’t have a local server for). Once I disabled that, it was fine.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Browsers barf at non https now. What are we supposed to do about certificates?

    • BlueBockser@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nothing, this is not about that.

      This change gives you the guarantee that .internal domains will never be registered officially, so you can use them without the risk of your stuff breaking should ICANN ever decide to make whatever TLD you’re using an official TLD.

      That scenario has happened in the past, for example for users of FR!TZBox routers which use fritz.box. .box became available for purchase and someone bought fritz.box, which broke browser UIs. This could’ve even been used maliciously, but thankfully it wasn’t.

    • egonallanon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Either ignore like I do or add a self signed cert to trusted root and use that for your services. Will work fine unless you’re letting external folks access your self hosted stuff.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        How do you propose to get LetsEncrypt to offer you a certificate for a domain name you do not and cannot control?

      • Findmysec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Private CA is the only way for domains which cannot be resolved on the Internet

    • rushaction@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Quite literally my first thought. Great, but I can’t issue certs against that.

      One of the major reasons I have a domain name is so that I can issue certs that just work against any and all devices. For resources on my network. Home or work, some thing.

      To folks recommending a private CA, that’s a quick way to some serious frustration. For some arguably good reasons. On some devices I could easily add a CA to, others are annoying or downright bullshit, and yet others are pretty much impossible. Then that last set that’s the most persnickety, guests, where it’d be downright rude!

      Being able to issue public certs is easily is great! I don’t use .local much because if it’s worth naming, it’s worth securing.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            So you can access your router’s config page without blasting your password in plaintext or getting certificate warnings. It’s an optional feature.

      • Railing5132@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Same thing we do with .local - “click here to proceed (unsafe)” :D

        Set up my work’s network waay back on NT4. 0 as .local cuz I was learning and didn’t know any better, has been that way ever since.

    • exu@feditown.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You can set up your own CA, sign certs and distribute the root to every one of your devices if you really wanted to.

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah I know about that, I’ve done it. It’s just a PITA to do it even slightly carefully.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        That sounds like a bad idea, you would need your CA and your root certs to be completely air gapped for it to be even remotely safe.

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            For self hosting at least, having your own CA is a pain in the ass to make sure everything is safe and that nobody except you has access to your CA root key.
            I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it’s definitely a lot of work and potentially a big security risk if you’re not 100% certain of what you’re doing.

            • Petter1@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Just use only VPN to access your services behind the reverse proxy, if you want prevent unauthorised connections.

              CA certificates are not here to prevent someone accessing a site, they are here, so that you can be sure, that the server you are talking to is really the one belonging to the domain you entered and to establish a tunnel in order to send the API calls (html, css, javascript etc.) and answers encrypted.

              • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                That’s the problem, if anyone somehow gets your root CA key, your encryption is pretty much gone and they can sign whatever they want with your CA.
                It’s a lot of work to make sure it’s safe in a home setup.

                • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You can just issue new certificates one per year, and otherwise keep your personal root CA encrypted. If someone is into your system to the point they can get the key as you use it, there are bigger things to worry about than them impersonating your own services to you.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          What if I told you, businesses routinely do this to their own machines in order to make a deliberate MitM attack to log what their employees do?

          In this case, it’d be a really targetted attack to break into their locally hosted server, to steal the CA key, and also install a forced VPN/reroute in order to service up MitM attacks or similar. And to what end? Maybe if you’re a billionaire, I’d suggest not doing this. Otherwise, I’d wonder why you’d (as in the average user) be the target of someone that would need to spend a lot of time and money doing the reconnaissance needed to break in to do anything bad.

          • Findmysec@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Ah, you mean they put the cert in a transparent proxy which logs all traffic? Neat idea, I should try it at home

            • r00ty@kbin.life
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              They (the service that provides both web protection and logging) installs their own root certificate. Then creates certs for sites on demand, and it will route web traffic through their own proxy, yes.

              It’s why I don’t do anything personal at all on the work laptop. I know they have logs of everything everyone does.

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m talking about home hosting and private keys. Not businesses with people whose full time job is to make sure everything runs fine.
            I’m a nobody and I regularly have people/bots testing my router. I’m not monitoring my whole setup yet and if someone gets in I would probably not notice until it’s too late.
            So hosting my own CA is a hassle and a security risk I’m not willing to put work into.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I found options like .local and now .internal way too long for my private stuff. So I managed to get a two-letter domain from some obscure TLD and with Cloudflare as DNS I can use Caddy to get Let’s Encrypt certs for hosts that resolve to 10.0.0.0/8 IPs. Caddy has plugins for other DNS providers, if you don’t want to go with Cloudflare.

      • kudos@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Might be an idea to not use any public A records and just use it for cert issuance, and Stick with private resolvers for private use.

        • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s a domain with hosts that all resolve to private IP addresses. I don’t care if someone manages to see hosts like vaultwarden, cloud, docs or photos through enumeration if they all resolve to 10.0.0.0/8 addresses. Setting up a private resolver and private PKI is just too much of a bother.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            My set up is similar to this but I’m using wildcards.

            So all my containers are on 10.0.0.0/8, and public dns server resolves *.sub.domain.com to 10.0.0.2, which is a reverse proxy for the containers.

    • wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Maybe browsers could be configured to automatically accept the first certificate they see for a given .internal domain, and then raise a warning if it ever changes, probably with a special banner to teach the user what an .internal name means the first time they see one

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The main reason this will never happen is that the browser vendors make massive revenue and profit margins off of The Cloud and would really prefer that the core concept of a LAN just dies so you pay your rent to them.

  • Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why do I care what ICANN says I can do on my own network? It’s my network, I do what I want.

      • Wilzax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well as long as the TLD isn’t used by anyone it should work internally regardless of what ICANN says, especially if I add it to etc/hosts

        • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 months ago

          Sure, you can do whatever you want. You could even use non-rfc1918 addresses and nobody can stop you. It’s just not always a great idea for your own network’s functionality and security. You can use an unregistered TLD if you want, but it’s worth knowing that when people and companies did that in the past, and the TLD was later registered, things didn’t turn out well for them. You wouldn’t expect .foo to be a TLD, right? And it wasn’t, until it was.

          • Wilzax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ah good point. I guess a future-proofed guarantee that the domain will never be used externally would be easier to use than trying to somehow configure my DNS to never update specific addresses.

        • Magiilaro@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          German router and network products company AVM learned the hard way that this is a bad idea. They use fritz.box for their router interface page and it was great until tld .box became publicly available and somebody registered fritz.box.

          Having a reserved local/internal only tld is really great to prevent such issues.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I agree that this is a good idea, but I wanted to add that if someone owns a domain already, they can also use that internally without issue.

            If you own a domain and use Let’s Encrypt for a star cert, you can have nice, well secured internal applications on your network with trusted certificates.

            • witten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              You don’t even need a star cert… The DNS challenge works for that use case as well.

            • Magiilaro@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              That is great when using only RFC 1918 IPv4 addresses in the network, but as soon as IPv6 is added to the mix all those internal only network resources can becomes easy publicly available and announced. Yes, this can be prevented with firewalling but it should be considered.

        • patrick@lemmy.jackson.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you just run a personal private network, then yea pick anything because you can change it fairly easily. Companies should try to stick to things that they know won’t change under them just to avoid issues

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      Certain domain names are locally routed only. So if you use internal or local as a tld, you can just assign whatever names you want and your computer won’t go looking out on the internet for them. This means you and I can both have fileserver.local as an address on our respective network without conflicting. It’s the URI equivalent of 192.168.0.0/16.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The value of the DNS is that we all use the same one. You can declare independence, but you’d lose out on that value.

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well, I just realized I completely goofed, because I went with .arpa instead of .home.arpa, due to what was surely not my own failings.

      So I guess I’m going to be changing my home’s domain anyway.

    • subtext@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It was just always so annoying having to go into the iPhone keyboard punctuation twice for each domain

  • Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyzB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:

    Fewer Letters More Letters
    CA (SSL) Certificate Authority
    DNS Domain Name Service/System
    HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web
    HTTPS HTTP over SSL
    IP Internet Protocol
    SSL Secure Sockets Layer, for transparent encryption
    TLS Transport Layer Security, supersedes SSL
    VPN Virtual Private Network

    6 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 6 acronyms.

    [Thread #910 for this sub, first seen 8th Aug 2024, 09:05] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]