Do you think it should work as follows?
“patches“: [”altCa.305”, ‘altUrl.tc.fritz.box’]
What exactly do you mean by writing ca.der in the firmware?
There is one step where you should write the ca.der from tc as c2.der into the firmware. That’s what I meant.
And yes, if you followed the guide, adding the altCa patch can help
@henryk
this was the solution [”altCa.305”, ‘altUrl.tc.fritz.box’]. Thank you very much!
and even @marco79cgn thx for your great help!
This happens quite frequently that people remove the altCA patch. I wonder why? Maybe because the Wiki says that it is “recommended” and people think that they can just skip it?
„Recommended“ in the Wiki context means that it is recommemded to flash the teddyCA to an alternative path (→ /cert/c2.der) so that you can choose between booting the original firmware (BoxineCA) or the patched one (TeddyCA). This is not possible with other boxes. The alternative would be to replace/overwrite the original BoxineCA with the TeddyCA (like with CC3235 and ESP32 boxes).
Your Toniebox can‘t connect to your Teddycloud without using the TeddyCA. So it is absolutely mandatory to have it on the box. It’s needed for the secured https communication. Otherwise there‘ll be an „unknown Certificate Authority“ exception on your Toniebox, no handshake, no communucation. The altCa patch is needed for the “recommended” way so that the CA from /cert/c2.der (TeddyCA) will be used instead of the original one (BoxineCA).
I followed this newbie guide a few days ago and removed this patch unintentionally as well.
Thereby I need to extend my “just” basic and rusty knowledge base ( especially in this topics proxmox, docker, portainer, subnets, python, json, etc …) So it took me some hours starting from basic youtube tutorials and going step by step.At some point in the late evening I guess I simply mixed the patch names altUrl.305 and altCa.305 and interpreted the following line in the guide
as request to choose and deleted altCa.305 from the list.
After some hours extra to follow the troubleshooting, do it all again a second time, and read existing forum questions I recognised my “simple” mistake by a post of a ngCfg somewhere.
After analysis of my mistake, I even dont have a suggestion what to change to avoid it. Choosing some obviously more different names for the patches might help, but read more carefully would it do also 
1 Like