this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
23 points (92.6% liked)

Selfhosted

56133 readers
954 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Here is my setup:

I have multiple DuckDNS domains (and subdomains) pointing to my home IP. My home router has port 80 and port 443 forwarded to Nginx Proxy Manager on my home server. Nginx Proxy Manager points to the appropriate docker container and each one is encrypted with Let's Encrypt.

Am I missing anything here or is this how I'm supposed to be doing it? Every app that has a DuckDNS url has a password in some shape or form.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

I'm using RouterOS. In the firewall rules you can create a rule that if an IP touches a port, it get added to a address list (optional with a time-out). So my FW rules begin like this:

  1. If source is whitelisted, Accept (avoid being locked out myself)
  2. If source IP is in the blacklist, drop all
  3. if source IP tries to connect to port 21,22,25,137-139, 113 (and a bunch of others) add it to the blacklist
  4. ....
  5. ....

So using a portscanner will touch ports I'm not running any service on (like telnet) and you'll be blocked. A time-out of one week on the blacklist usually gives me an blacklist of 6500+ addresses.

This too has endless possibilities. t.ex. like port knocking. ('touch' one or more ports in a specified sequence in a specified time to be allowed to access the actual service port)

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

This is a waste of time and your router's CPU. You already have a whitelist and know your safe TCP sources, just drop all wan traffic and only allow new input from whitelist. Your chain input rule is just creating a pretty list of bots you're dropping anyway.

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 2 points 23 minutes ago

Well, here is the CPU load:

And there is no increase on delay's or jitter compared to what i'm already facing on the WAN itself.

It keep's 6000+ hosts with possible harmful intend away from the ports I need/want open to the world. Actually, the router -while still being bored- offloads the services behind it. I really can't see a reason not to keep doing it. But, sure, it's a personal choice.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Off-topic: Looks like you missed the two spaces after beginning a new line.
Just wanted to inform you in case you werent aware ;)

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago

the spacebar on my Remington isn't what it used to be, maybe a drop of oil will help ;)