Roland0 wrote:
> ownership isn't required, you can also use e.g. a duckdns subdomain
> the subdomain / host name doesn't have to exist, and you can get
> wildcard certificates (so one can use e.g. *.internal.domain.com with a
> single SSL cert)
>
Letsencrypt only offers wildcard certificates
gordonb3 wrote:
>
> to use Letsencrypt you must own a public domain and whatever name you
> want a certificate for must be registered to that domain and
>
ownership isn't required, you can also use e.g. a duckdns subdomain
the subdomain / host name doesn't have to exist, and you can get
Roland0 wrote:
> Looks interesting, however seems to be mainly geared to exposing LAN
> services to the Internet. Would need integrated DNS proxy / DHCP server
> for the full package.
> Might be an option for those brave enough to expose LMS to the outside
> (as it seems to offer some sort of
mherger wrote:
> > - a reverse proxy to terminate the SSL connections (e.g. nginx, HA
> > Proxy)
>
> I've been using https://nginxproxymanager.com for a while now.
> Relatively easy to set up (if you have Docker running anyway...), and is
>
> supposed to support Let's Encrypt.
>
Looks
- a reverse proxy to terminate the SSL connections (e.g. nginx, HA
Proxy)
I've been using https://nginxproxymanager.com for a while now.
Relatively easy to set up (if you have Docker running anyway...), and is
supposed to support Let's Encrypt.
That said: LMS will still require port 9000 or
Somewhat related - I'm currently moving the web UIs of all apps I run in
my LAN (including LMS) to https, so here's a short summary of my
findings.
A clean solution (i.e. one which works with all clients (browsers etc.))
out of the box is not trivial unless you have basic tech skills.
You'll
RobbH wrote:
> That's probably a very helpful explanation for the original poster and
> anyone who finds this thread in the future. But you seem to have
> interpreted my comment as critical of Logitech, and I would like to
> state that that was not my intention.
I don't care about the Logitech
gordonb3 wrote:
> Stop it. The level of support is just fine and probably even better than
> any commercial party will offer. There is just no new development in
> hardware, but even if there was it would still not include HTTPS support
> for the simple reason that it is impossible for any
RobbH wrote:
> I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which Logitech did not buy Slim
> Devices, fifteen years ago, and the hardware is still supported now. It
> seems to me that it would be very unlikely that we would enjoy the level
> of support we have now, in any case.
Stop it. The level of
freelsjd wrote:
> ...Once again constrained by the abandonment of the product by Logitech
> after purchasing from slimserver leaving the customer base. I like the
> logitech mice, but disdain what they did here. They could update the
> firmware to fix.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario in
At least I now understand why LMS remains using http since the hardware
(in my case a squeezebox-2) requires it. Once again constrained by the
abandonment of the product by Logitech after purchasing from slimserver
leaving the customer base.
To be fair you have to accept the fact that there
AFAIK the players don't communicate with LMS over HTTP. This interface
They do when playing local media files, or when streaming proxied and
https online resources.
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
I think you should have searched better, because this seems like a
duplicate entry to me.
AFAIK the players don't communicate with LMS over HTTP. This interface
is really only to allow you to control what is being played. The main
point about using plain HTTP here instead of secure HTTPS is
Apparently, with newer version of chrome, it must remember the response
to the conflict (which is to go insecurely and override the need for
https), because it is now not stopping but running as it should. Since
I am behind my router, and within my lan, this should not be a security
issue.
I
slartibartfast wrote:
> I have no issue using Chrome for LMS. It tells me the connection is
> insecure but that is all. What do you mean when you say you have to
> force it to use the http favourite?
Also works fine for me in both Chrome and the newer Chromium based Edge
- Windows 10Pro. LMS
freelsjd wrote:
> I apologize up front if this is a FAQ, but I could not seem to find it
> if it is.
>
> The newer versions of Google Chrome are essentially requiring https in
> order to work. At the very least, I have to force it to use http; even
> over the LAN to my favorite LMS
People asking for https does come up occasionally but given that the
hardware players require http then it would be difficult for LMS to make
a switch completely.
However, you are not asking for that.
I am running Chrome 96 and have no issues accessing localhost or
127.0.0.1 or 192.168.x.y
I apologize up front if this is a FAQ, but I could not seem to find it
if it is.
The newer versions of Google Chrome are essentially requiring https in
order to work. At the very least, I have to force it to use http; even
over the LAN to my favorite LMS (http://localhost:9000/).
Is there
18 matches
Mail list logo
