Dev and Maintainer of Lemmy Userdata Migration
Oh I’m fully aware. I personally don’t care, but one could add a capable VPS and deploy the Wireguard Host Container + two Client Containers, one for the LAN and one for the commercial VPN (like so), if the internet connection of the LAN in question isn’t sufficient.
Oh, neat! Never noticed that option in the Wireguard app before. That’s very helpful already. Regarding your opnsense setup:
I’ve dabbled in some (simple) routing before, but I’m far from anything one could call competent in that regard and even if I’d read up properly before writing my own routes/rules, I’d probably still wouldn’t trust that I hadn’t forgotten something to e.g. prevent IP/DNS leaks.
I’m mainly relying on a Docker and was hoping for pointers on how to configure a Wireguard host container to route only internet traffic through another Wireguard Client container.
I found this example, which is pretty close to my ideal setup. I’ll read up on that.
Indeed it does, I was talking about adding a checkbox tagged “Only transfer blocked users” instead of having to click through some menus.
Sure, the code is completely client-side, simply clone it. If you’re running into CORS problems due to the file:// scheme Origin of opening a local file, simply host it as a local temporary server with something like python -m http.server .
This is due to the two ways most instances validate Cross-Origin requests:
file:// URLs will result in a null or file:// Origin which can’t be authorized via the second option, therefore the need to sometimes host the application via (local) webserver.
The whole point of this being a web app is to make it as easy as possible for the user to download/modify/transfer their user data. LASIM is a traditional app the user has to download and install, similar to a script this web app was developed to replace due to being too difficult to use for some users.
The import functionality targeted by this API is additive and my app features a built-in editor to add, modify or remove information as the user sees fit. To achieve your stated goal, you’d have to remove anything except the blocked_users entries before importing, which my app supports, I added a wiki entry explaining the workflow in more Detail.
I may add options to modify the exported data in some ways via a simple checkbox in the future, but I wouldn’t count on it. I’m always open for pull requests!
The export/import functionality is, yes. This implementation uses the same API endpoints, but the main reason for this existing:
An instance I was on slowly died, starting with the frontend (default web UI). At least at the time, no client implemented the export/import functionality, so I wrote a simple script in Bash to download the user data, if the backend still works.
Running a script can still be a challenge to some users, so I wrote a web application with the same functionality.
It’s a bit redundant if we’re talking about regularly working instances, but can be of use if the frontend isn’t available for some reason.
The export/import functionality is, yes. This implementation uses the same API endpoints, but the main reason for this existing:
An instance I was on slowly died, starting with the frontend (default web UI). At least at the time, no client implemented the export/import functionality, so I wrote a simple script in Bash to download the user data, if the backend still works. Running a script can still be a challenge to some users, so I wrote a web application with the same functionality. It’s a bit redundant if we’re talking about regularly working instances, but can be of use if the frontend isn’t available for some reason.
Good call, I’ll add some explanations, kinda forgot about those.
EDIT: Done.
Misleading title.
In the string of images uploaded online, we get a look at file repositories, a rough map of the proposed Moon location, and shots of some early conceptual images and set pieces. As the story goes, CDPR originally intended for the Moon to be a featured location in the base game but recognised that it was too ambitious a goal, so they cut the content and instead decided to use it for an expansion – which ultimately never surfaced.
Cyberpunk 2077’s development has officially ended, so there’s no chance this will ever see the light of day.
Great synopsis!
The cool thing about GrapheneOS: It provides basically all the comforts and usability as any Android (stock) ROM minus some compatibility issues with a portion of Google Apps and services (Google Pay doesn’t and probably will never work, for example) while providing state-of-the-art security and privacy if you choose to utilize those features. A modern Pixel with up-to-date GrapheneOS, configured the right way, is literally the most secure and private smartphone you can get today.
The problem with Nix and its forks, imho, is that it takes a lot of work, patience, time and the willingness to learn yet another complex workflow with all of its shortcomings, bits and quirks to transition from something tried, tested and stable to something very volatile with no guaranteed widespread adoption.
The whole leadership drama and the resulting forks, which may or may not want to achieve feature parity or spin off into their own thing, certainly doesn’t make the investment seem more attractive, either.
I, too, like the concept of Nix very, very much. But apart from some experimental VMs, I’m not touching it on anything resembling a production environment until it looks to like it’s here to stay (predictable).
I’ve been tempted by Tailscale a few times before, but I don’t want to depend on their proprietary clients and control server. The latter could be solved by selfhosting Headscale, but at this point I figure that going for a basic Wireguard setup is probably easier to maintain.
I’d like to have a look at your rules setup, I’m especially curious if/how you approached the event of the commercial VPN Wireguard tunnel(s) on your exit node(s) going down, which depending on the setup may send requests meant to go through the commercial VPN through your VPS exit node.
Personally, I ended up with two Wireguard containers in the target LAN, a wireguard-server and a **wireguard-client **container.
They both share a docker network with a specific subnet {DOCKER_SUBNET} and wireguard-client has a static IP {WG_CLIENT_IP} in that subnet.
The wireguard-client has a slightly altered standard config to establish a tunnel to an external endpoint, a commercial VPN in this case:
[Interface] PrivateKey = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Address = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PostUp = iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE PreDown = iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE PostUp = iptables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT PreDown = iptables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark $(wg show %i fwmark) -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT [Peer] PublicKey = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0,::0/0 Endpoint = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXwhere
PostUp = iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADE PreDown = iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o wg+ -j MASQUERADEare responsible for properly routing traffic coming in from outside the container and
is your standard kill-switch meant to block traffic going out of any network interface except the tunnel interface in the event of the tunnel going down.
The wireguard-server container has these PostUPs and -Downs:
PostUp = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADEdefault rules that come with the template and allow for routing packets through the server tunnel
PostUp = wg set wg0 fwmark 51820the traffic out of the tunnel interface get marked
PostUp = ip -4 route add 0.0.0.0/0 via {WG_CLIENT_IP} table 51820add a rule to routing table 51820 for routing all packets through the wireguard-client container
PostUp = ip -4 rule add not fwmark 51820 table 51820packets not marked should use routing table 51820
PostUp = ip -4 rule add table main suppress_prefixlength 0respect manual rules added to main routing table
PostUp = ip route add {LAN_SUBNET} via {DOCKER_SUBNET_GATEWAY_IP} dev eth0route packages with a destination in {LAN_SUBNET} to the actual {LAN_SUBNET} of the host
PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE; ip route del {LAN_SUBNET} via {DOCKER_SUBNET_GATEWAY_IP} dev eth0delete those rules after the tunnel goes down
PostUp = iptables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -I OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT PreDown = iptables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECT && ip6tables -D OUTPUT ! -o %i -m mark ! --mark 0xca6c -m addrtype ! --dst-type LOCAL -j REJECTBasically the same kill-switch as in wireguard-client, but with the mark manually substituted since the command it relied on didn’t work in my server container for some reason and AFAIK the mark actually doesn’t change.
Now do I actually need the kill-switch in wireguard-server? Is the kill-switch in wireguard-client sufficient? I’m not even sure anymore.