Try diasbling the second DHCP server altogether. You only need one, since you have a flat network.
I'm exclusively running unprivileged LXC containers and haven't had any issues regarding the firewall, neither with iptables nor nftables.
No, it is not like Docker. You can treat an LXC container pretty much like a VM in most instances, including firewall rules. To answer the question, you can use fail2ban just like you had done in your VM, meaning you can run it inside the LXC container, where fail2ban can change the firewall rules of that container as it sees fit.
I understood that. My point was rather that in this particular case (a CPU bug that could be fixed via microcode, but AMD chose not to do so for certain CPUs), RISC-V wouldn't have been of any advantage, because there would be nothing to fix in the first place. Sure, one could introduce microcode for RISC-V and people have argued in favor of doing so for this exact reason, but the architecture was intentionally designed to not require microcode.
As much as I like RISC-V, it is kind of ironic to suggest RISC-V ist the solution to this. At least as it stands, because of RISC-V's simplicity, most if not all current RISC-V CPUs don't even run microcode, so there is nothing to update/fix in case of a CPU bug. There's even a very current example of this problem with that chinese RISC-V cpu that has this "GhostWrite" bug that allows every unpriviliged process to gain root access.
What does it offer that nginx doesnt?
Automatic HTTPS, you don't have to use certbot or something similar to get/renew certificates. Also, its configuration is really simple and straight forward.
IT-Tools - hands down one of the coolest self hosted tool sets you can use.
Looks similar to Cyberchef. Any reason to use that one over Cyberchef?
@486
@lemmy.world