this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40313 readers
185 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.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In the past two weeks I set up a new VPS, and I run a small experiment. I share the results for those who are curious.

Consider that this is a backup server only, meaning that there is no outgoing traffic unless a backup is actually to be recovered, or as we will see, because of sshd.

I initially left the standard "port 22 open to the world" for 4-5 days, I then moved sshd to a different port (still open to the whole world), and finally I closed everything and turned on tailscale. You find a visualization of the resulting egress traffic in the image. Different colors are different areas of the world. Ignore the orange spikes which were my own ssh connections to set up stuff.

Main points:

  • there were about 10 Mb of egress per day due just to sshd answering to scanners. Not to mention the cluttering of access logs.

  • moving to a non standard port is reasonably sufficient to avoid traffic and log cluttering even without IP restrictions

  • Tailscale causes a bit of traffic, negligible of course, but continuous.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wgs@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I get what you say, and you're definitely not wrong to do it. But as I see it, you only saved ~80Kib of ingress and a few lines of logs in the end. From my monitoring I get ~5000 failed auth per day, which account for less than 1Mbps average bandwidth for the day.

It's not like it's consuming my 1Gbps bandwidth or threatening me as I enforce ssh key login. I like to keep things simple, and ssh on port 22 over internet makes it easy to access my boxes from anywhere.

[–] aesir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

ssh -p 12345 would leave your boxes accessible from anywhere too. Other blocks of IPs receive 10 times or more requests, as scanners can focus on blocks of ips from major providers.

[–] wgs@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I know, I just don't really care about that traffic to bother changing it :) Also, I'm talking about a server hosted on Hetzner, so I feel like it's scanned a lot.

[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't get why people leave interfaces the public doesn't need access to open to the public -- especially SSH.

Use a VPN if you need access to those interfaces from the "outside". They're stupidly easy to set up these days, particularly with Wireguard.

[–] wgs@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

A VPN is easy to setup (and I have it setup by the way), but no VPN is even easier. SSH by itself is sufficiently secure if you keep it up to date with a sane configuration. Bots poking at my ssh port is not something that bother me at all, and not part of any attack vector I want to be secure against.

Out of all the services I expose to the clear web, SSH is probably the one I trust the most.