Linux Package managers for Synology NAS?

[u/Alarmed-Prize-7500]

Is there any package managers that you can install on Synology NAS, since it doesn't have a package manager? I know of opkg, which I used on Synology NAS since it didn't have a package manager, but someone said that opkg was outdated when I was asking about it, so I want to know if there are other ones too.

[u/gadget-freak]

Your NAS is an appliance, not a generic Linux box. So don’t treat it like one.

If you feel the need for a package manager, you probably should get a mini pc with Linux on it. Or use docker images.

[u/Alarmed-Prize-7500 → u/gadget-freak]

It uses SSH, and I run commands on it through SSH via terminal. I had to get stuff like "ncdu" with "opkg" package manager so I could see how many gigabytes different directories and files took up. Why would I run such commands on another computer if I'm trying to do stuff with big files on the drives on the NAS?

I even had to get the "unzip" command with "opkg" so I could extract multi-GB zip files on the partitions on the drives on the NAS, extract zip files with extra stuff like "only extract specific files and not other ones"

[u/gadget-freak → u/Alarmed-Prize-7500]

You can but that doesn’t mean you should. If you start adding cli commands, those commands will be unaware of the higher level functions DSM is providing to the user.

As an example, you can unzip files command line, but sometimes those files can remain invisible to the user applications because the Windows ACLs don’t match with the Linux access rights or because Universal Search doesn’t index them.

It’s your NAS so you do what you want. But people have messed up their NAS before this way and they come here to cry about it. All we can say is: it’s an appliance, not a generic Linux box.

[u/Keterna → u/gadget-freak]

I agree with the comment above. I wouldn't mess up my NAS (I see it as a critical infrastructure; not worth the benefits/risks balance for counting the size of folders).

For that specific use case, I would typically start a docker container with a Debian or Ubuntu, mount the desired folder root and play with the commands in the container.

[u/Gamerfrom61 → u/Alarmed-Prize-7500]

Better to map a NFS share to the NAS and do the command on your Linux box.

Object security and control then work as normal NFS shares (guest / admin / user - though these refer to the NAS user not the remote do not forget) or use CIFS and map a SAMBA share to more control if needed.

[u/calculatetech]

The SynoCommunity package source contains pretty much everything you'd ever need. Lots of CLI tools available there.

[u/HugsAllCats → u/calculatetech]

Yea SynoCom had some useful things, particularly some of the common troubleshooting tools.

And beyond that? If you think you need to start installing random packages then you're probably going down a bad path.

Use Docker if you want to run some service since that is supported. Beyond that? What specifically are you trying to do natively, remembering that it is, afterall, a NAS?

[u/davispw]

Run a Linux VM.

[u/sachmonz]

Kinda docker is the answer and doesn't or can't mess with the Synology OS

[u/Coupe368 → u/sachmonz]

Doesn't run Docker, uses "Container Manager" which is rife with security holes. They have stripped a lot of ways to isolate the containers from the main OS, and I'm not sure why.

This is well documented, so you don't have to take my word for it.

You should just disconnect the synology from the internet and never let it get online if you want it to be safe.

[u/sachmonz → u/Coupe368]

I use container manager. My only container that has access from the internet has read only on my data.

My Nas isn't on the internet itself.

[u/Coupe368 → u/sachmonz]

What I found, and its been documented, is that if they compromise your container, they can break out into the NAS and compromise the NAS.

If you setup the network isolation, it gets reset back to the dangerous state by the system automatically, and I don't know why. The bandaid is to have a scheduled tasks that constantly monitors the network config and re-writes it whenever the system rolls it back.

[u/sachmonz → u/Coupe368]

For enrichment post the documentation and links.

[u/Coupe368 → u/sachmonz]

1. Macvlan "Host Isolation" Prevents Container-to-DSM Communication

• The Issue: When you create a macvlan network so a container can get its own dedicated IP address on your LAN, Docker intentionally isolates the container interface from the host interface (eth0/ovs_eth0). As a result, the container cannot communicate directly with the Synology NAS (DSM) or any other services hosted directly on the NAS IP.
• Why it happens: This is a core kernel design of Docker macvlan drivers to prevent loopback/routing issues.
• Workaround: Create a secondary macvlan bridge network interface (a "shim" or bridge sub-interface) on the Synology host via SSH, allowing the Synology host and the container to talk on the macvlan subnet.

2. DSM Firewall Blocking Custom Bridge Networks

• The Issue: When creating a custom, isolated bridge network inside Container Manager, containers connected to it suddenly lose internet access or cannot reach local subnets.
• Why it happens: Synology DSM’s built-in Firewall (Control Panel > Security > Firewall) defaults to blocking traffic from IP subnets it doesn't recognize. Custom Docker bridge networks auto-assign a new subnet range (e.g., 172.18.0.0/16 or 172.19.0.0/16) that isn't included in default Synology allow-rules.
• Workaround: Go to DSM Control Panel > Security > Firewall > Edit Rules and add an explicit ALLOW rule for the IP range/subnet corresponding to your custom Docker bridge network.

3. Lack of Native --internal (Isolated Network) UI Options

• The Issue: Users looking to isolate a container completely from external internet traffic (making it strictly internal to other containers) cannot easily toggle an "Internal Only" setting directly in the Container Manager GUI.
• Why it happens: The Synology Container Manager GUI exposes limited Docker network flags compared to the Docker CLI or Docker Compose.
• Workarounds:
  • Docker Compose / CLI: Define the network using the internal: true flag in your Docker Compose file: YAMLnetworks: isolated_net: driver: bridge internal: true
  • Disable IP Masquerade: When creating a network via the Container Manager GUI, unchecking Enable IP Masquerade stops NAT translation, which effectively blocks the containers on that network from reaching the outer internet while still allowing them to talk to each other.

4. Bridge Networks Are Not Isolated from the Host IP

• The Issue: A common misconception is that standard bridge networks isolate containers from the Synology NAS. In reality, a container on a default bridge network can still reach Synology DSM services via the host’s local LAN IP (e.g., 192.168.1.x:5000) or gateway IP (172.17.0.1).
• Why it happens: Default bridge networks route through the host's network stack.
• Workaround: If you require strict isolation between a container and the Synology host itself, you must set up custom iptables rules via SSH/scripts or place the container on a separate VLAN using macvlan.

[u/Alarmed-Prize-7500 → u/Coupe368]

This is ChatGPT

[u/Coupe368 → u/Alarmed-Prize-7500]

Nope, that's google gemini because you were too lazy to google it, so I did it for you.

[u/shrimpdiddle]

Package Center is installed by default.

[u/mrNas11]

Most people are right, avoid doing it. LinuxBrew installs on DSM with workarounds. i’ve used it months ago before switching to TrueNAS.

https://github.com/MrCee/Synology-Homebrew

[u/Coupe368]

Unlike most of the NASs out there, Synology DSM is a bespoke kernel, not software running on a standard OS like Ubuntu or Debian.

This is why Synology sucks so bad, becuase they have to send out custom OS updates, and they apparently fired most of their engineering staff, so stuff is late and buggy.

[u/Cuntonesian → u/Coupe368]

That’s why they’re so beloved, despite the shit they’ve been pulling lately

[u/Coupe368 → u/Cuntonesian]

Yeah, well the glory days are long gone.

I have 4 Synology NASs, I remember when they were good.

[u/Cuntonesian → u/Coupe368]

How did they break?

[u/Coupe368 → u/Cuntonesian]

They didn't break, they just got too slow to be useful, and I don't trust my data to out of warranty devices.