Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
Not all web traffic, just the images to check. With any decent bandwidth, it shouldn't be an issue for most. It also setup in such a way as to not cause a downtime if the checker goes down.
Ah, yeah, my bad this was a lack of clarity on my part; I meant all image traffic.
Oh? Would the fallback be that it simply doesn't do a check? Or perhaps it could disable image uploads if the checker is down? Something else? Presumably, this would be configurable.
It stops doing checks. Iirc you can configure it yes
It's not only the bandwidth; I just fundamentally don't relish the idea of public traffic being directed to my local network.
You don't get public traffic redirected. It's not how it works
Yeah, that was poor wording on my part — what I mean to say is that there would be unvetted data flowing into my local network and being processed on a local machine. It may be overparanoia, but that feels like a privacy risk.
I don't see how it's a privacy risk since you're not exposing your IP or anything. Likewise the images are already uploaded to your servers, so there's no extra privacy risk for the uploader.
"Security risk" is probably a better term. That being said, a security risk can also infer a privacy risk.
Why would it be a security risk?
For clarity, I'm not claiming that it would, with any degree of certainty, lead to incurred damage, but the ability to upload unvetted content carries some degree of risk. For there to be no risk, fedi-safety/pictrs-safety would have to be guaranteed to be absolutely 100% free of any possible exploit, as well as the underlying OS (and maybe even the underlying hardware), which seems like an impossible claim to make, but perhaps I'm missing something important.
You mean an exploit payload embedded in an image, and pwning a system parsing that image through python PIL? While there's never a 100% chance of anything, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than this coming to pass and at that point you're at more security risk at using the internet altogether.