[GH-ISSUE #247] Traefik Published Ports #1360

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2026-04-16T08:00:40-05:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-04-16 08:00:40 -05:00

Originally created by @magnetic-domelike-twisting on GitHub (Feb 27, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin/issues/247

Originally assigned to: @oschwartz10612 on GitHub.

Hey All,

I just updated to beta 15 and successfully ran the installer to get Traefik installed. When looking at the ports exposed for the traefik container I was a little confused why some of these were exposed.

Crowdsec defines ports used here https://docs.crowdsec.net/docs/configuration/network_management/

In the Dockerfile created by the installer I see these ports exposed

9090
6060

6060 lines up with prometheus metrics, but 9090 doesn't line up with anything. I don't see anything that lines up with port 9090 though. So checking the docker-compose.yml in the repo here I see this:

      - 9090:9090 # port mapping for local firewall bouncers
      - 6060:6060 # metrics endpoint for prometheus

Ok, makes a bit more sense, but checking the crowdsec logs I don't see anything start up on port 9090. If I check the crowdsec config.yaml I do see that the local api is configured to listen on port 8080 and checking the container logs I do see that starting up.

Ok, kind of a long wind up for these questions.

Is port 9090 mapped right? Should it be 8080 in the docker-compose.yml?
Should these ports even be published by default? A lot of cheap VPS providers don't have a firewall in front of them so publishing these ports in docker opens these ports to the world. Is this expected behavior?

Hopefully none of those come across as a complaint. Pangolin is awesome and it's super cool that CrowdSec can be installed so easily now. Thanks for all the work that's been put into this, it's made my life easier

Originally created by @magnetic-domelike-twisting on GitHub (Feb 27, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin/issues/247 Originally assigned to: @oschwartz10612 on GitHub. Hey All, I just updated to beta 15 and successfully ran the installer to get Traefik installed. When looking at the ports exposed for the traefik container I was a little confused why some of these were exposed. Crowdsec defines ports used here https://docs.crowdsec.net/docs/configuration/network_management/ In the Dockerfile created by the installer I see these ports exposed * 9090 * 6060 6060 lines up with prometheus metrics, but 9090 doesn't line up with anything. I don't see anything that lines up with port 9090 though. So checking the [docker-compose.yml](https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin/blob/8445e83c7c14fabc2b3810991af8a955b4e578ca/install/config/crowdsec/docker-compose.yml#L28) in the repo here I see this: ``` - 9090:9090 # port mapping for local firewall bouncers - 6060:6060 # metrics endpoint for prometheus ``` Ok, makes a bit more sense, but checking the crowdsec logs I don't see anything start up on port 9090. If I check the crowdsec config.yaml I do see that the local api is configured to listen on port 8080 and checking the container logs I do see that starting up. Ok, kind of a long wind up for these questions. 1. Is port 9090 mapped right? Should it be 8080 in the docker-compose.yml? 2. Should these ports even be published by default? A lot of cheap VPS providers don't have a firewall in front of them so publishing these ports in docker opens these ports to the world. Is this expected behavior? Hopefully none of those come across as a complaint. Pangolin is awesome and it's super cool that CrowdSec can be installed so easily now. Thanks for all the work that's been put into this, it's made my life easier

GiteaMirror added the needs investigating label 2026-04-16 08:00:40 -05:00

GiteaMirror closed this issue

2026-04-16 08:00:40 -05:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-04-16 08:00:41 -05:00

@oschwartz10612 commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025):

This is a good point. Will look into this. 9090 might be only needed in the internal network. If so I will update the config.

@oschwartz10612 commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025): This is a good point. Will look into this. 9090 might be only needed in the internal network. If so I will update the config.

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-16 08:43:59 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #1360] Inconsistent Subdomain Validation: Some Domains Accept Hyphens, Others Reject Them #1874

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-20 07:57:43 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #1360] Inconsistent Subdomain Validation: Some Domains Accept Hyphens, Others Reject Them #3816

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-25 15:35:17 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #1360] Inconsistent Subdomain Validation: Some Domains Accept Hyphens, Others Reject Them #6670

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-30 04:38:00 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #1360] Inconsistent Subdomain Validation: Some Domains Accept Hyphens, Others Reject Them #8638