I read a comment on here some time ago where the person said they were using cloudflared to expose some of their self-hosted stuff to the Internet so they can access it remotely.

I am currently using it to expose my RSS feed reader, and it works out fine. I also like the simplicity of Cloudflare’s other offerings.

Any thoughts on why cloudflared is not a good idea? What alternatives would you suggest? How easy/difficult are they to setup?

  • JonnyJaap@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    10 months ago

    The first point is only when you use the tunnel function, right ?

    Because I noticed, if use the tunnel function (hiding your private ip) the sites gets an Cloudflare certificate, but if just using it as DNS (without tunnel) the page has my certificate.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      If you use DNS with proxy it still applies, you should get a Cloudflare certificate then. But yes, if you use Cloudflare as DNS only, then it should be direct. I believe you get none of the protection or benefits doing this, you’re just using them as a name server.

      The Cloudflare benefits of bot detection, image caching, and other features all rely on the proxy setting.

      Also if proxying is enabled, your server IP is hidden which helps stop people knowing how to attack your server (e.g. they won’t have an IP address to attempt to SSH into it). You don’t get this protection in DNS only mode either.

      Basically if you’re using DNS only, it’s no different to using the name server from your domain registrar as far as I can tell.