this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
52 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

61513 readers
1447 users here now

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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There are some services that I expose to the internet (using Apache reverse proxy) that really should be accessed by only a small set of devices. Requiring client certificates seems like a great way to reduce the attack surface and prevent brute force attacks (since the attacker doesn't even get a chance to attempt a login).

I wonder about the difficulty on the client side as well as other practical implications. The clients are smartphones of various makes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] achim@mastodon.weindl.biz -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@observantTrapezium

I just saw your other reply on Lemmy regarding Headscale.

Headscale should already solve that use case without putting mTLS in front of every service.

By default, a Headscale tailnet is rather permissive, but you can load a policy and use Grants (or ACLs, though Grants are the preferred direction) to explicitly allow only the connections you want. A phone does not need access to “the whole tailnet” just because it is enrolled.

For example, each user/device group could be allowed to reach only:

  • the Immich host on its HTTPS port;
  • the CalDAV/CardDAV host on 443;
  • optionally the Matrix client endpoint on 443;

…and nothing else. No SSH, no databases, no admin UIs, no access to other tailnet nodes. Start with an empty grants policy — which denies all tailnet traffic — then add narrowly scoped allow rules for the relevant source devices and service destinations.

That also means the client can simply connect when it needs those services; it does not need broad, permanent network access merely because the Headscale app is installed. And if a device is lost, removing that node from Headscale cuts off its network access immediately.

So I would still favour: private services behind Headscale plus a deny-by-default policy, instead of managing a separate mTLS PKI for several native mobile apps. The latter is viable, but it is solving device/network admission at the application TLS layer when you already operate a tool designed to do it at the network layer. Headscale explicitly supports access control policies for restricting traffic between nodes, and policies can deny all traffic by default until specific access is granted.

[–] observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Ah, interesting. Looks like using grants does resemble what I envision and probably easier to set up that mTLS. I'll certainly explore that!