3 ms·

While SyncThjng might be encrypted, it’s yet another port or server that’s open. We need ubiquitous private networks, such as wire guard, zerotier, or the bugg

While SyncThjng might be encrypted, it’s yet another port or server that’s open. We need ubiquitous private networks, such as wire guard, zerotier, or the buggy back-to-my-mac.

bowel 3y ago
You can always turn off NAT, LAN announcement, Relays and STUN -- and run SyncThing behind WireGuard. I use Tailscale and it works like a charm.
- thefz 3y ago
  You can also run your own relay and only allow that if you want!
mholt 3y ago
I keep wanting Tailscale to offer a "tailnet API" whereby you can bundle a tailnet into your app, and users can connect to other instances of the app (whether their same account or other people sharing parts of their app/data) seamlessly: E2E encrypted, NAT busting, it just works. Think about it: mobile and desktop apps no longer have to upload things to some third-party service to share with yourself or a group of people. You could set up your own server of course but that requires technical expertise. The mass market could share data, sync, and communicate, straight from their devices, without any service hosting their data. It's just all on the private network. There's probably a billion-dollar market there (or more) if someone can figure that out for a lay audience: virtually unlimited, encrypted private networks on-demand that require no setup.
- gnur 3y ago
  Pretty sure they offer that already, https://tailscale.com/blog/golink/ https://tailscale.com/blog/golink/ has more information on embedding the tailnet within a program.
  - mholt 3y ago
    It can be embedded in a program, but it doesn't automatically manage devices on a tailnet; i.e. there's no way to add all users of an app to the same tailnet (they have to explicitly create a Tailscale account and sign in and share and join) - AFAIK.
- dmytrish 3y ago
  Isn't this litailscale?
- barbs 3y ago
  Not sure if this is exactly what you're describing but I noticed the open-source Diablo engine DevilitionX has Zerotier built in to allow online multiplayer sessions. https://github.com/diasurgical/devilutionX/wiki/Multiplayer#zerotier https://github.com/diasurgical/devilutionX/wiki/Multiplayer#... I thought it was interesting way for an open-source game to provide a way to find other players without relying on paid dedicated servers.
  - mholt 3y ago
    Ah yeah, that's pretty cool. Something like that!!
rakoo 3y ago
Private networks are one part of the solution. Syncthing synchronizes, and for anyone who has ever tried it, it's not just two rsync's back and forth, whether ports are open or not
qbasic_forever 3y ago
If you use wireguard or something similar that gives every client their own private and encrypted IP then you don't really need syncthing. You can just use rclone or even rsync commands that point directly at the appropriate client IP in the mesh network. Syncthing is still useful though for its continuous syncing support and overall UI.
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
Private networks are old and busted; zero-trust & E2EE is the new hotness. (well, if 14 years is considered new) The idea of a network as a delineation of security or trust is inherently flawed and should be considered an anti-pattern. Reliance on "private" networks merely moves attacks to the network level, making a very large target and exposing more at once. Zero trust is where the whole world should be moving: explicit authorization added at a fine-grained level to each thing each user wants to access. But people haven't been exposed to this idea yet in their day to day lives, so they can't let go of the old paradigms of firewalls and networks.
reaperducer 3y ago
or the buggy back-to-my-mac. Back to My Mac was awesome. When it worked. I had about an 80% success rate with it, dragging my MacBook Air to about 30 countries around the world. It was tremendously useful at a time when storage was far more expensive and internal drives much smaller than they are today. Often when it didn't work, I could just leave the computer running in the hotel while I went out and did touristy stuff, and by the time I came back things had sorted themselves out.
Avamander 3y ago
You can disable discovery and hardcode clients to connect to each other using hostnames that resolve to whatever private IPs you have.
paradox460 3y ago
You can route SyncThing over a tailnet

While SyncThjng might be encrypted, it’s yet another port or server that’s open. We need ubiquitous private networks, such as wire guard, zerotier, or the buggy back-to-my-mac.

bowel 3y ago

You can always turn off NAT, LAN announcement, Relays and STUN -- and run SyncThing behind WireGuard. I use Tailscale and it works like a charm.

thefz 3y ago
You can also run your own relay and only allow that if you want!

mholt 3y ago

I keep wanting Tailscale to offer a "tailnet API" whereby you can bundle a tailnet into your app, and users can connect to other instances of the app (whether their same account or other people sharing parts of their app/data) seamlessly: E2E encrypted, NAT busting, it just works. Think about it: mobile and desktop apps no longer have to upload things to some third-party service to share with yourself or a group of people. You could set up your own server of course but that requires technical expertise. The mass market could share data, sync, and communicate, straight from their devices, without any service hosting their data. It's just all on the private network. There's probably a billion-dollar market there (or more) if someone can figure that out for a lay audience: virtually unlimited, encrypted private networks on-demand that require no setup.

gnur 3y ago
Pretty sure they offer that already, https://tailscale.com/blog/golink/ https://tailscale.com/blog/golink/ has more information on embedding the tailnet within a program.
- mholt 3y ago
  It can be embedded in a program, but it doesn't automatically manage devices on a tailnet; i.e. there's no way to add all users of an app to the same tailnet (they have to explicitly create a Tailscale account and sign in and share and join) - AFAIK.
dmytrish 3y ago
Isn't this litailscale?
barbs 3y ago
Not sure if this is exactly what you're describing but I noticed the open-source Diablo engine DevilitionX has Zerotier built in to allow online multiplayer sessions. https://github.com/diasurgical/devilutionX/wiki/Multiplayer#zerotier https://github.com/diasurgical/devilutionX/wiki/Multiplayer#... I thought it was interesting way for an open-source game to provide a way to find other players without relying on paid dedicated servers.
- mholt 3y ago
  Ah yeah, that's pretty cool. Something like that!!

rakoo 3y ago

Private networks are one part of the solution. Syncthing synchronizes, and for anyone who has ever tried it, it's not just two rsync's back and forth, whether ports are open or not

qbasic_forever 3y ago

If you use wireguard or something similar that gives every client their own private and encrypted IP then you don't really need syncthing. You can just use rclone or even rsync commands that point directly at the appropriate client IP in the mesh network. Syncthing is still useful though for its continuous syncing support and overall UI.

0xbadcafebee 3y ago

Private networks are old and busted; zero-trust & E2EE is the new hotness. (well, if 14 years is considered new) The idea of a network as a delineation of security or trust is inherently flawed and should be considered an anti-pattern. Reliance on "private" networks merely moves attacks to the network level, making a very large target and exposing more at once. Zero trust is where the whole world should be moving: explicit authorization added at a fine-grained level to each thing each user wants to access. But people haven't been exposed to this idea yet in their day to day lives, so they can't let go of the old paradigms of firewalls and networks.

reaperducer 3y ago

or the buggy back-to-my-mac. Back to My Mac was awesome. When it worked. I had about an 80% success rate with it, dragging my MacBook Air to about 30 countries around the world. It was tremendously useful at a time when storage was far more expensive and internal drives much smaller than they are today. Often when it didn't work, I could just leave the computer running in the hotel while I went out and did touristy stuff, and by the time I came back things had sorted themselves out.

Avamander 3y ago

You can disable discovery and hardcode clients to connect to each other using hostnames that resolve to whatever private IPs you have.

paradox460 3y ago

You can route SyncThing over a tailnet