this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
24 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

61546 readers
161 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
24
[solved] Why can't I access this service over the LAN? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by AMillionMonkeys@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

edit:
I needed to edit ~/.config/qui/config.toml and bind the host to "0.0.0.0"

I'm running Debian (12) and I just installed qui, a single binary dropped in /usr/local/bin. When I fire it up, I can access the web interface on the local machine via localhost:7476, but I cannot access it over the LAN via the server's IP. Firefox just says 'Unable to connect'.
I can access a dozen other services over the LAN, and as far as I'm aware there's no firewall enabled by default.
What gives?

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Check if you need a flag when starting it to bind 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Be careful if there’s a public IP address. I think some operating systems even include IPv6 with 0.0.0.0 so that if there’s a public one assigned this might open it up to the world.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah it's a very good rule of thumb to always bind to explicit IPs.

Another issue with 0.0.0.0 is that it will bind to basically everything, including whatever bridge or tunnel interfaces you may have up on that machine. And that's how you end up with random services exposed through VPNs and God knows what, when you thought it was a "private" service that only lives on your LAN.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Its always DNS.

But seriously, I'm not familiar with qui, but there could be a whitelist approach to access by default. Maybe it's blocking access until you whitelist or configure it to accept all.

Its not likely your local firewall is an issue since you can access other services, but the fact that you don't know means you should find out. I think Debian uses ufw by default, but I think Debian ships with it disabled.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

'Its always DNS' should be on a shirt. Last problem I had was DNS.

[–] scott@lem.free.as 3 points 3 days ago

Because the process might only be listening on the loopback address (127.0.0.1/localhost).

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Solving problems in less than 30 minutes, LOL Nice job.