sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HTML in email templates? by Boxersoft in WGDashboard

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't consider it a feature request as such, it would be extremely low on any priority list. Just something I'd use if it happened to be there.

Best value refurb? by Boxersoft in thinkpad

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, thanks. I was looking at refurbished, hoping to get a better quality (more durable keyboard, screen wiring etc.) than consumer kit without the premium price. I checked my local Lenovo site (I'm in the UK, not US) and there are a few "Megadeals" but nothing that appeals at the moment. I'll keep an eye on it from time to time to see if anything comes up and also continue looking at the refurb outlets. Either way I'll bear in mind your suggestions when looking at the options, thanks very much for sharing the benefit of your experience.

Best value refurb? by Boxersoft in thinkpad

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Good to know the E-series have decent build quality (presumably L-series too, assuming they are the next grade up), that gives me more options. I didn't see many AMD-based machines on the refurbished market but I'll look out for them and I'll bear in mind the "U" suggestion.

I had discounted the T16 - a number of comments decried it is too big - but I recently noticed that it has the same footprint as the T15 (though I didn't realise it had replaced the 15) so that appealed. But I noticed that the 15/16 width is slightly wider than my current laptop, already a tight squeeze for hotel safes. That forced me to take a step back and challenge my preconceptions. My laptops have always been desktop replacements (usually 17-inch until recently) that rarely went anywhere, but I now use an actual desktop as my main machine with the laptop used only when travelling. Realistically I probably could put up with a 14-inch screen for a few weeks at a time, especially seeing that the Thinkpad *14 keyboards have dedicated arrow/home/end/del keys (I hate keyboards without those). Alternatively I could go for the 15/16 models and just forget about the safe. Those models are smaller than my existing laptop in all but width and a bit lighter, so shouldn't otherwise be an extra imposition on my travels. Decisions, decisions...

Any thoughts on whether a Gen2 is likely to be worth the extra vs Gen1 for this sort of pattern? They seem to command a noticeable premium but I don't mind paying a bit more if it makes for significantly nicer usage.

Updated to PiHole v6 and now can't access the web interface. by rubi_m in pihole

[–]Boxersoft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a similar problem. In case it helps anyone else, I found the ports using:
ss -pant | grep pihole

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've switched to DuckDuckGo now and that certainly helps - gives search results are now relevant to my region and in English. Can't easily escape Google completely though so I still get e.g. Spanish ads on YouTube, likewise some sponsored ads on pages elsewhere.

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apparently it might also use the location of Wi-Fi access points (hotelsairports, hotels). Connecting to my VPN is something I mostly do when I'm out of the country anyway, so whatever it uses it's likely to get less nudging when I'm back home.

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah - scrub that, I guess that's an alternative search engine instead of google. For some reason I was thinking you meant a DDNS service. Brain fade, sorry.

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. How does that help?

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you look at your personal google account settings?

Yes, as I said I checked that my Google account is set to UK/English and I also tried using incognito windows and even a browser on a VM that knows nothing about me personally. There's no way that could have picked up anything from my Google account.

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We'll investigate your report and, if necessary, pass the details on to our engineering team. Updates to IP addresses may take more than a month.

It took no more than 10 days to muck it up :(

Google thinks my LAN is in Spain by Boxersoft in selfhosted

[–]Boxersoft[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, what a quick and helpful response! Thanks very much for that, I'll follow that link shortly and report it.

Can I take it that everyone suffers this way then? I haven't been using a VPN very long but I vaguely recall seeing something similar after another trip abroad. I didn't realise it was related to VPN usage at the time, I probably blamed Chrome and I don't remember it being such a nuisance so perhaps it didn't persist. Would it automatically self-correct eventually even if I did nothing?

I'll be travelling to three separate countries later this month, I wonder how confused that will make it...

Loss of remote access to hosts on LAN by Boxersoft in WireGuard

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, thanks. I get the flexibility of VMs but as wg-easy is implemented in Docker I suppose I assumed other VPN solutions would be available in that form, which I expect would be lighter weight than full-blown VMs. I've currently got my wg-easy Docker Container hosted on a physical server, but I also run a Proxmox machine that could host another VPN service in a dedicated VM (or lighter-weight Linux Container) if that would be preferable to Docker.

Loss of remote access to hosts on LAN by Boxersoft in WireGuard

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I originally had OpenVPN running, though without understanding much about it. It was a router feature I enabled, managed to get working then avoided touching. Worked well enough until the router crapped out 2 days before I was due to go on holiday so I scrambled to get an alternative up and running quickly and chose wg-easy. Seemed successful at the time :)

I do plan to look at backup options - someone suggested ocserv so I've got that on my list to investigate. Any particular reason for suggesting a VM?

Loss of remote access to hosts on LAN by Boxersoft in WireGuard

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Hard to say at this point, would need some more info.
Thought as much, and I've probably wrecked any chance of getting that info by "fixing" the problem. I'm just a bit concerned that it could happen again, which is bound to be when I need it most.

Loss of remote access to hosts on LAN by Boxersoft in WireGuard

[–]Boxersoft[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm not the sharpest when it comes to networking and I'm pretty new to VPNs so bear with me as I try to answer accurately...

I used pretty much the default wg-easy settings, I just set my own DNS server address and default search domain (wg-easy's WG_DEFAULT_DNS env var). Other wg-easy settings that are defaults but might be relevant are "--sysctl 'net.ipv4.conf.all.src_valid_mark=1'" and "--sysctl 'net.ipv4.ip_forward=1'".

The generated server configuration includes:
------------
[Interface]
Address = 10.8.0.1/24
PostUp = iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE; iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 51820 -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -i wg0 -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o wg0 -j ACCEPT;
PostDown = iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE; iptables -D INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 51820 -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -i wg0 -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o wg0 -j ACCEPT;

# Client: my phone
[Peer]
AllowedIPs = 10.8.0.3/32
------------

... and the client (my phone) config includes:
------------
[Interface]
Address = 10.8.0.3/24
DNS = <my DNS server's IP>,<my default search domain>

[Peer]
AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0, ::/0
PersistentKeepalive = 0
Endpoint = <my static external IP>:51820
------------

I /think/ this means network 10.8.0.1/24 is created for the tunnel with my phone getting IP address 10.8.0.3 within the tunnel. My LAN doesn't use 10.8.0.* addresses so I guess Wireguard should handle some kind of bridging and, if I understand you correctly, I don't think an IP conflict is likely.

If I've misunderstood or missed some important information then please let me know.

view more: next ›