Does the nginx proxy server not support authentication?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| DNS | Domain Name Service/System |
| HTTP | Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web |
| IP | Internet Protocol |
| SSO | Single Sign-On |
| VPN | Virtual Private Network |
| nginx | Popular HTTP server |
[Thread #751 for this sub, first seen 16th May 2024, 06:35] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
You need a wildcard cert for ypur subdoman:
*.legal.example.com
Then point that record to 127.0.0.0. This will not resolve for anyone. But you'll have an internal dns enty (useig pihole/adguard/unbound) that redirects to your reverse proxy.
You could also point to your revers proxy internal address instead of 127.0.0.0.
This video could help you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlcVx-k-02E
This is the way. This is the video I followed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liV3c9m_OX8
I use traefik as reverse proxy. I have externally accessible domains for and then extra secure internal only domains that require wireguard connection first as an extra layer of security.
Authentik can be used as a forward auth proxy and doesn't care if it's an internal or external domain.
Apps that don't have good login or user management just get Authentik proxy for single sign on (sonarr, radar etc).
Apps that have oAuth integration get that for single sign on (seafile, immich, etc)
To make it work the video will talk about adding both the internal and external domains to the local DNS so that if you access it from outside it works and if you access from wireguard or inside the lan it also works.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=liV3c9m_OX8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The only catch is that some ISP or workplaces filler public DNS entries that point to private IPs because they can be indications of certain attacks.
But does this matter if you just want this to be locally accessible and you're running your own dns?
If it's resolved only on a private DNS server then it's ok.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=qlcVx-k-02E
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You can try setting up a VPN, eg headscale/tailscale with your home server being an exit node, and then just set up your questionable services on a domain that only resolves locally - and then you don't need to use authentik for authorisation to those services.
This is what I have been trying recently, and seems to work well.
Cloudflare tunnel is an option, you can even scrap your own nginx
I use Cloudflare WARP
I just set up a Vouch-Proxy for this yesterday. It uses the nginx auth_request directive to authenticate users with an SSO server, and then stores the token in a domain-wide cookie, so you're logged in across all subdomains. Works pretty well so far, you don't even notice it when you're logged in to your SSO provider.
But you do have to tell the proxy where you want to redirect a request somehow, either by subdomain (illegal.yourdomain.com) or port (yourdomain.com:8787) or path (yourdomain.com/illegal). I'm not sure if it works with raw IPs as hosts, but you can add additional restrictions like only allowing local client IPs.
In my special case I'm using the local Synology SSO server, and I have to spin up an additional nginx server because the built-in one doesn't support auth_request.
it just seems to redirect to an otherwise Internet accessible page.
I'm using authelia with caddy but I'm guessing it could be similar, you need to configure the reverse proxy to expect the token the authentication service adds to each request and redirect to sign in if not. This way all requests to the site are protected (of course you'll need to be aware of APIs or similar non-ui requests)
I have to make an Internet accessible subdomain.
That's true, but you don't have to expose the actual services you're running. An easy solution would be to name it other thing, specially if the people using it trust you.
Another would be to create a wildcard certificate, this way only you and those you share your site with will know the actual sub domain being used.
My advice is from my personal setup, but still all internal being able to remotely access it via tailscale, so do you really need to make your site public to the internet?
Only if you need to share it with multiple people is worth having it public, for just you or a few people is not worth the hassle.
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:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!