Do you have port 80 to nginx open? Certbot dry run will give you some diagnostics, but that is the most common issue (port 80 being closed).

I also run LE on nginx and afraid DNS.

The effect is similar to sticky ports, but sticky ports is just filtering based on Mac address, which can be spoofed.

802.11x allows traffic from a device only if they also have the correct EAP certificate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1X

802.1x are a set of protocols that allow port access to be locked to specific devices, which would preclude your need for multiple subnets. You would likely need a few extra physical ports on your white box router, the unmanaged switch could later become overwhelmed passing traffic in a more complicated setup, and you would still need to keep trusted and untrusted traffic separate at the gateway subnet.

Your use case is exactly why vlans were invented.

However, I suspect from your other answers that you are actually looking for an open source managed switch so your entire networking stack is auditable.

There are a few solutions like opx, but hardware supporting opx is prohibitively expensive and it is almost always cheaper to build a beige box and use Linux or get a 2nd hand supported device and use openwrt.

For simple cases you might be able to use 802.1x authentication if “trust” is the issue. This doesnt scale well as a solution on a larger network though.

Op specified they have a dumb switch

Kind of a vague question, but I take it you mean OS-level hardening, which should be fine with CIS hardening.

In a virtualized environment, there are many security layers to take care of: network access, storage, api control, identity access, cluster config, backups, etc.

Don’t be flippant.

This is like going to a car enthusiast forum and asking “any potential problems with driving a car that may or may not be stolen?”

You have indicated that you’re aware of the potential repercussions of running a personal project in a publicly-funded environment.You’ve already been told that this is unethical everywhere and illegal in many places.

If you are so sure of your indemnity because it’s “your device”, why are you asking on Lemmy?

It can manage KVM, so I don’t see why not .

Side question, but where are you hearing this about incus?

I’m wrapping up 9 years of using proxmox and I have very specific reasons for switching to incus, but I this is the third time I’m fielding questions in the last month about incus.

I think so.

It is LXD + KVM, so way more and finer tune control on lxc instances. It can run OCI images as well, so for docker instances with only a few configs and no persistent storage, it is actually quite handy. For docker instances that need pretty complicated compose files, I just run docker inside an lxc for now, until I figure that out.

Bash variable manipulation is really, really fun.

More incus:

• mounting persistent storage into containers (cheating by exporting NFS from my proxmox zfs into the incus host.
• wrote a pruning backup script for containers, runs daily, keeps last 7 days and the first of the month
• passed through hardware (quicksync) into jellyfin container (it works!)
• launched an OCI container (docker home assistant) natively in incus (this is a game-changer!)

Next:

• build 2nd incus node
• move all containers from proxmox to incus
• decom proxmox
• setup Debian with NFS export

I use eleventy. Similar to other static site generators.

Because NAT acts as a firewall with a “default deny” policy for incoming packets, but no other rules. You cannot prevent a device on the private subnet side of a NAT from attempting to communicate with an “outside” ip with nat alone, nat doesnt understand the concepts of accept/deny/drop.

All nat does is rewrite address headers.

The machines behind a NAT box are not directly addressable because they have private IP addresses. Machines out on the general Internet cannot send IP packets to them directly. Instead, any packets will be sent to the address of the NAT box, and the NAT box looks at its records to see which outgoing packet an incoming packet is in reply to, to decide which internal address the packet should be forwarded to. If the packet is not in reply to an outgoing packet, there’s no matching record, and the NAT box discards the packet.

It’s a confused topic because for a lot of people, nat does essentially everything they want. As soon as you get into more complex networking where a routing table needs to be updated, or bidirectional fw rules, it becomes apparent why routing + fw + nat is the most common combo.

Yes, Lxc, docker, whatever cgroup2 isolation environment, but not VMS, true.

Vms can achieve the same thing through shares

Assuming it’s not a 1-1 NAT it does make for a functional unidirectional firewall.

That’s like saying a router and firewall are the same thing. NAT appears to be a “firewall” because it’s usually deployed with one. NAT itself has no filtering functions the way you’re describing.

Now, a pure router in the sense of simply offering a gateway to another subnet

A “pure” router, as you put it, understands upstream subnets and routing tables. NAT does not, and is usually overlayed on top of an existing routing function.

You can set up NAT between two subnets as an experiment with no iptables and it will do its job.

NAT simply maps IPS across subnet boundaries in such a way that upstream routing tables don’t need updating.

If you use destination NAT forward rules to facilitate specific destination port access, you are using a firewall.

Each cgroup container mounts a host path. That’s it.

Op means, as they said, a firewall on the server itself.

NAT is, effectively, a firewall.

No it isn’t. Stop giving advice on edge security.