Sigmoid Social

Andreas Scherbaumcertbot on Debian Bookworm fails with: The peer didn't know the key we used<a href="https://andreas.scherbaum.la/post/2025-06-09_certbot-on-debian-bookworm-fails-with-the-peer-didnt-know-the-key-we-used/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://andreas.scherbaum.la/post/2025-06-09_certbot-on-debian-bookworm-fails-with-the-peer-didnt-know-the-key-we-used/</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/LetsEncrypt" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#LetsEncrypt</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Debian" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Debian</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Challenge" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Challenge</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Bookworm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Bookworm</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Trixie" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Trixie</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Certbot" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Certbot</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Bind" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Bind</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Encryption" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Encryption</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/DNSSEC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DNSSEC</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ACME" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ACME</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/DNS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DNS</a>

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://sk.girlthi.ng/@thermia" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@thermia</a> <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a> should be outlawed - espechally when it illegally uses <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> address space!

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://mstdn.jp/@landley" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@landley</a> <a href="https://mstdn.social/@jschauma" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@jschauma</a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/@ryanc" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@ryanc</a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@0xabad1dea</a> yeah, the exhaustion problem would've been shoved back with a <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/64bit" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#64bit</a> or sufficiently delayed by a 40bit number.Unless we also hate <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/NAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#NAT</a> and expect every device to have a unique static <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IP" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IP</a> (which is a <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/privacy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#privacy</a> nightmare at best that "<a href="https://infosec.space/tags/PrivacyExtensions" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#PrivacyExtensions</a>" barely fixed.) <ul><li>I mean they could've also gone the <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DECnet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DECnet</a> approach and use the <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/EUI48" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#EUI48</a> / <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MAC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MAC</a>-Address (or <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/EUI64" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#EUI64</a>) as static addressing system, but that would've made <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/vendors" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#vendors</a> and not <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ISPs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ISPs</a> the powerful forces of allocation. (Similar to how technically the <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ICCID" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ICCID</a> dictates <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/GSM" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GSM</a> / <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/4G" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#4G</a> / <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/5G" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#5G</a> access and not the <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IMEI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IMEI</a> unless places like Australia ban imported devices.</li></ul> I guess using a <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/128bit" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#128bit</a> address space was inspired by <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ZFS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ZFS</a> doing the same before, as the folks who designed both wanted to design a solution that clearly will outlive them (way harder than COBOL has outlived Grace Hopper)...<ul><li>Personally I've only had headaches with <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv6" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv6</a> because not only do I only have <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv4only" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv4only</a> <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Internet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Internet</a> but my <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ISP" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ISP</a> refuses to allocate even a singe /64 to me (but has no problem throwing in a free /29 of <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv4" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv4</a>'s in with my contract!)and stuff like <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/HurricaneElectric" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#HurricaneElectric</a> / <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/HEnet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#HEnet</a>'s <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Tunnelbroker" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Tunnelbroker</a> fail face first due to <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Geoblocking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Geoblocking</a> and the fact that <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ASNs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ASNs</a> get geolocated, not their <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/PoPs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#PoPs</a>... </li></ul>If I was <a href="https://social.bund.de/@BNetzA" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@BNetzA</a> I would've mandated <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DualStack" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DualStack</a> and banned <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a> (or at least the use of CGNAT in <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> address spaces) as well as <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DualStackLite" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DualStackLite</a>!

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://chaos.social/@wmd" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@wmd</a> <a href="https://denden.world/@miqokin" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@miqokin</a> also the <a href="https://chaos.social/@wmd/113899197317600561" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">same Issues</a> are by my own experience are better solved via <a href="https://mastodon.social/@torproject" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@torproject</a> / <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Tor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Tor</a>, <a href="https://social.librem.one/@guardianproject" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@guardianproject</a> 's <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Orbot" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Orbot</a> & <a href="https://infosec.exchange/@micahflee" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@micahflee</a> 's <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/OnionShare" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OnionShare</a> just to name a few.<ul><li>Not to mention most <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MobileNetworks" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MobileNetworks</a> illegally use <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> space like 10.0.0.0/8 for <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a>, intentionally bricking <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/VPN" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#VPN</a>|s in order to force <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/progessionals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#progessionals</a> and <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/businesses" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#businesses</a> in way more expensive contracts as they need a "real" VPN for work...</li></ul>

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://ipv6.social/@tschaefer" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@tschaefer</a> fängt damit an dass bis heute nicht alle <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv6" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv6</a> haben oder bekommen können...<ul><li>Bspw.: Verweigert mein <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ISP" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ISP</a> die Bereitstellung von echtem <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DualStack" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DualStack</a>. (Deshalb kann ich <a href="https://ipv6.social/@tschaefer/113453220246374691" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">diesen Post</a> auch nicht direkt aufrufen!)</li></ul>Umgekehrt sind bis heute nicht alle <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Diensteanbieter" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Diensteanbieter</a> & Services von <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv4" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv4</a> auf <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv6" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv6</a> migriert worden.<ul><li><a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv6only" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv6only</a> ist anders als ein <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Windows" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Windows</a>-Verbot (was <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/BDSG" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BDSG</a> & <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DSGVO" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DSGVO</a> eigentlich verlangen!) illusorisch.</li></ul>Sorgt zwar für Henne-Ei-Problem, wäre aber durch die <a href="https://social.bund.de/@BNetzA" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@BNetzA</a> lösbar indem diese zwangsweise je IPv4 mindestens ein /64 an IPv6 vorschreibt und Bullshit wie <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a> [insbesondere mit <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a>-Addressraum] verbietet!<ul><li>Besonders Bullshit wie <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DualStackLite" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DualStackLite</a> ist murks: Entweder korrekt Dual-Stack oder lasst es sein!!!</li></ul>

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://troet.cafe/@jue" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@jue</a> <a href="https://chaos.social/@goetz" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@goetz</a> <a href="https://chaos.social/@fluepke" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@fluepke</a> Until you have some <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/remote" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#remote</a> workers who only have <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a> + pseudo-static <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IPv6" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv6</a> addresses on a <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/consumer" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#consumer</a> line...Then it's not an option and you'll have to resort to <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> and <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/DualStack" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DualStack</a> <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/WAN" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#WAN</a>-side, as I had to setup for a fmr. employer / client...

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://chaos.social/@goetz" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@goetz</a> <a href="https://chaos.social/@fluepke" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@fluepke</a> AFAICT, all <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MNOs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MNOs</a> and <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MVNOs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MVNOs</a> in <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Germany" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Germany</a> violate <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC6598" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC6598</a> by using <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> address space ( 10.0.0.0/8) bricking <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/VPNs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#VPNs</a> that use the same address range instead of using the <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a> address space ( 100.64.0.0/10 ).Sadly, <a href="https://social.bund.de/@BNetzA" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@BNetzA</a> doesn't really care to enforce anything...<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation</a> <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918</a> <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598</a>

Julius KaiserI remember seeing public IPv4 addresses from Xerox and the US DoD assigned to DTAG LTE SIMs internally in Germany (04/2020), probably because they ran out of RFC1918 space. Do you have other such examples? I would like to collect them. (boosts in the IP/ net admin bubble appreciated!)<a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/ipv4" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ipv4</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/telco" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#telco</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/networking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#networking</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/network" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#network</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/telekom" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#telekom</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/sysadmin" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#sysadmin</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/ipv6" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ipv6</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/cgnat" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#cgnat</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/nat" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#nat</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/rfc1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#rfc1918</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/internet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#internet</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/dtag" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#dtag</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/bgp" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#bgp</a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/dfz" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#dfz</a>

Kevin Karhan :verified:<a href="https://infosec.exchange/@forceofhabit" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@forceofhabit</a> yeah, blocking <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/CGNAT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CGNAT</a> address ranges is a good thing.<ul><li>Tho most <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MNO" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MNO</a>|s & <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MVNO" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MVNO</a>|s violate <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/NetNeutrality" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#NetNeutrality</a> and <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/IETF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IETF</a> standards and use <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> (i.e. 10.0.0.0/8) for CGNAT.</li></ul>Also thanks for reminding me to never set foot into Belgium again, cuz that sounds like a facist policestate!

Come On Giant Asteroid!<a href="https://mastodon.radio/@2E0RKE" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@2E0RKE</a> It was still being referred to as <a href="https://mastodon.radio/tags/IPng" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPng</a> and our instructor said that we'd be out of IPV4 addresses in a year or two so they needed to get going. That was 1993 or 1994. And then <a href="https://mastodon.radio/tags/RFC1918" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RFC1918</a> hit and here we are - a broken address space and no way forward to network nirvana. I've only worked with <a href="https://mastodon.radio/tags/IPv6" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IPv6</a> on a live network for a little bit but I lived what I saw.

Recent searches

Search options

Administered by:

Server stats:

#rfc1918