Internet browser

[dusterz]

I know this has come up in the past, but being new to the community I wanted to register my interest. I would very much like a basic Web Browser App.

Doesn't need to be fancy, just something so that on rare occasions I can easily access other devices inside my home network when I am away from home. For example, being able to log into the admin interface on my home router (which is not visible on WAN side) so that I can configure port forwarding if I've installed a new app. Setting up a VPN/Proxy seems overkill when I just need to on occasion access a web interface of a different device inside of my home network.

Thanks for listening.

[Toxic17]

so how do you expect to securely access this web browser inside your LAN if you not using a VPN?

[dusterz]

Hi Toxic, thanks for reading. I currently forward port 8080 on my router. I don't whish this thread to descend into the merits of security, but just to say that I am comfortable having the QNAP web interface exposed. While I could also expose the routers interface, I don't wish to poke more holes in my router than I need to. Also, accessing the router was just an example - I have a few other devices internally which on rare occasion I'd like to be able to browse to. Some of which I wrote so I wouldn't trust its security and wouldn't expose them directly to the internet, but would be happy to access them once I've authenticated with the QNAP. As I said, it's for very occasional use as it isn't exactly efficient accessing a browser from within a browser!

[dolbyman]

dont think there is a virtual webbrowser .. because you are already using a webbrowser to access port 8080 (your nas webinterface)

that would be browserception .. so to say

the only webrowsers available on the nas are on hdstation (hdmi) or via some form of vm (vm station,linuxstation)

[razormoon]

Hi dusterz,
Just for a 'little' peace of mind, you should redirect 8080 on the router and that way you won't be easy to find.
So say, you can change the number on the WAN side to 45588 and redirect back to 8080. It will be a long time before someone successfully 'knocks'.

I'm running Windows Server 2012 Essentials R2 and have VPN configured. All of the laptops in my household automatically log in from the internet.
With my account, whenever I am out on the road it connects to my server and from there I can see (and configure) all the devices in my network.
So...in a nutshell, VPN will probably be the only thing that will accomplish what you need. I believe some remote desktops allow you to do this as well being that they work on the same principle.
You can also find some in 3rd party repo.

[carlots251]

I'd like to have this APP too, basic Web browser inside nas (like others apps).
The reasons are many:
- access from remote website from home IP (when there is a ip filtering),
- access local web devices if I don't want open public doors/nat etc. etc.

[dolbyman]

install a vm then

[carlots251]

Nope
VM are ove 8088 port. So I must:
-open 8088 port (or traslate a X port to 8088) to access to virtualization station
-open rdp port (or traslate a X port to 3389) to access rdp on vm.
I could use teamviewer or similar on VM, but is a Server OS so the licence doesn't work for much time, or at all.

[P3R]

VM are ove 8088 port. So I must:
-open 8088 port (or traslate a X port to 8088) to access to virtualization station

Why must you do that? I see that as unnecessary and insecure.

-open rdp port (or traslate a X port to 3389) to access rdp on vm.

Yes if you want to access an internal service you need to have at least one way in but you could instead close 8080, as that would now be available here.

Advantages with a VM over this feature request are:

• It's available right now.
• It give you freedom to do many more things than just web browsing.
• You can use whichever browser you want instead of the one the appmaker chooses.
• You use the original browser that supports the plug-ins that you like and automatically can be kept fully updated and secure.
• You're not in the hands of a third-party appmaker that will always be behind schedule if they even make updates regularly available (Qnap doesn't have a great track record at that...).

[carlots251]

VM are ove 8088 port. So I must:
-open 8088 port (or traslate a X port to 8088) to access to virtualization station

Why must you do that? I see that as unnecessary and insecure.[/list]

yes, I Agree about that.

-open rdp port (or traslate a X port to 3389) to access rdp on vm.

Yes if you want to access an internal service you need to have at least one way in but you could instead close 8080, as that would now be available here.
[/list]

Yes its unsecure i agree too.

Advantages with a VM over this feature request are:

• It's available right now.
• It give you freedom to do many more things than just web browsing.
• You can use whichever browser you want instead of the one the appmaker chooses.
• You use the original browser that supports the plug-ins that you like and automatically can be kept fully updated and secure.
• You're not in the hands of a third-party appmaker that will always be behind schedule if they even make updates regularly available (Qnap doesn't have a great track record at that...).

Nope, But I must ativate the VM (need qnap's resources).

An Web Brownser as APP in Qnap could be pretty much easier.

[chantavu]

Yes. I have the same need. Please advise if we can have a web browser app on QNAP

[dolbyman]

they introduced browser station (needs a container capable nas) did you check that out ?

[P3R]

they introduced browser station (needs a container capable nas) did you check that out ?

Yes it's a "light weight" VM solution but please note that it:

• Is in beta testing status
• Requires QTS version 4.2.2 or higher
• Requires Container Station, v1.7.2224 or higher
• Requires at least 4GB RAM
• Presently only supported on TS-x53U, TS-x53A, TS-x53, TS-x53B, TS-453Bmini, TVS-x63+, TVS-x63, TS-x63U, TS-x70, TVS-x70, TVS-x71, TVS-x73, TS/SS-x79, TS/TVS-x80, TVS-x82, TVS-x82T, TVS-x82ST, TES-x85U, TDS-16489U

[boborene]

I'd like to have this APP too, basic Web browser inside nas (like others apps).

Yes. I perfectly understand you. Sometime you need to test web from NAS and you are forced to use a lousy container.

[dolbyman]

Thread marked for closure due to necroposting (5 years)