• tuckerm@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m curious about whose website this is. Does this person make one-off informational pages? This security.html page has one style, then there’s popular_self_hosting_services.html with a different style, and the homepage with a classic, basic HTML style.

    I haven’t read the article yet – I can’t say if it’s good info or bad info. But it’s nice to know something about who’s writing it when it comes to this kind of thing.

    • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think they have a lemmy account as I first saw them here, although I don’t think OP is the site author.

      Their javascript “game in less than X lines” stuff is pretty interesting and entertaining but their blogposts are mostly LLM slop. Of course, due to the fact that this article is just basic info, it’s not that bad and is pretty accurate. But their more advanced blogposts begin to fall apart and have the LLM hallucinations, outdated info, and inaccuracies.

      This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40SnEd1RWUU has similar information (though a bit less and doesn’t cover some things), but presented in the style of a comedy skit type thing.

    • Matt The Horwood@lemmy.horwood.cloud
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I can confirm that the information is relevant to anyone hosting stuff on the internet, yes the site is a mess of style. that shows it has grown over time. I wander if some of it is AI generated and so has its own look

      • non_burglar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        I can confirm that the information is relevant to anyone hosting stuff on the internet

        You use ufw at your network perimeter? This is really basic stuff and a fair bit misleading naive.

        MaxAuthTries is negated by having no password auth, so no point in having the option.

        These are not complete or even accurate.

        • Matt The Horwood@lemmy.horwood.cloud
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I dont use ufw, Im old and run raw iptables. But network perimeter here is the server perimeter, not the network (e.g. router). But I would apply the same logic to routers, only open ports you need

          MaxAuthTries in the deb man page has this: Specifies the maximum number of authentication attempts permitted per connection. That could be both password and key

          Just because you know how things work, doesnt mean everyone does. This is a good starting point for new homelabbers, as I see questions about security now and then

          • non_burglar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I’m also old and use iptables at server level as well.

            But network perimeter here is the server perimeter, not the network (e.g. router).

            Most ppl in my profession would not assume a host’s net controls as “network perimeter”, so I’m not sure what your context is there.

            Just because you know how things work, doesnt mean everyone does.

            Yeah, fair. But by the same token, we still have to chime in when these terms are thrown around and offered to newer homelabbers. And there is a lot of free security “advice” in these sub’s from folks who have a weak understanding of any of it.