this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
64 points (95.7% liked)

Selfhosted

40329 readers
361 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
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
64
Are you exposing any ports on your home server? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by fhein@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Maybe I'm using the wrong terms, but what I'm wondering is if people are running services at home that they've made accessible from the internet. I.e. not open to the public, only so that they can use their own services from anywhere.

I'm paranoid a f when it comes to our home server, and even as a fairly experienced Linux user and programmer I don't trust myself when it comes to computer security. However, it would be very convenient if my wife and I could access our self-hosted services when away from home. Or perhaps even make an album public and share a link with a few friends (e.g. Nextcloud, but I haven't set that up yet).

Currently all our services run in docker containers, with separate user accounts, but I wouldn't trust that to be 100% safe. Is there some kind of idiot proof way to expose one of the services to the internet without risking the integrity of the whole server in case it somehow gets compromised?

How are the rest of you reasoning about security? Renting a VPS for anything exposed? Using some kind of VPN to connect your phones to home network? Would you trust something like Nextcloud over HTTPS to never get hacked?

(page 2) 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] static09@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't technically open any ports to the public. I have a site-to-site wireguard tunnel to a hosted server. The hosted server is running a hypervisor with two virtual switches. One switch is my external switch and only my Wireguard server is using it. The other is an internal switch where I place other VMs for separate things. A container host, a terminal server with xrdp, a monitoring server with netdata, stuff like that. All technically, but unnecessarily, accessed through nginx proxy manager.

Because it's site2site with my home equipment on the Wireguard server, i can still connect to my home network where i host a number of separate services like HomeAssistant from outside the home network.

I don't use tailscale, but Wireguard vanilla is super easy to work with. I also have fail2ban pretty much everywhere I can install it because it takes up practically zero resources.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I'm somewhat like you, in that I recognize I'm not a network guru. My home server with containers, as well as a few other devices are blacklisted from accessing the internet at my router. When i have needed outside access I have one machine with wireguard and some ip forwarding/masqurade etc so I have one connection in but can see the LAN for logging into stuff "locally". The only pain is non internet access devices losing sync with a time server.

[–] rarkgrames@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Have a look in to Twingate, that should do exactly what you need.

[–] kratoz29@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd if I could, but CGNAT.

[–] EddyBot@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This year I started using DynDNS with only my IPv6 address since IPv4 is behind CGNAT and it actually works quite well nowadays

[–] kratoz29@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean works? Like you could access from everywhere some services like Plex or Nextcloud?

[–] EddyBot@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yes just like with a static IPv4

[–] kratoz29@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, I'm not sure of how exactly this works, but I'm gonna check it out since I have IPv6 addresses.

Just to be clear, even from IPv4 only can access my exposed services?

[–] EddyBot@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

If you expose ports on IPv4 or IPv6 (port forwarding) anyone can access the service behind these ports if they know your address but so do you too

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 1 year ago

I run a few services that require ports to be open. Everything that can go behind a reverse proxy does so. But there's some that can't and that's OK.

[–] manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

ipv6 and reverse proxied. yes.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 1 year ago

I use Remote Desktop, BitTorrent, and play games, so I need some things open for that. I used to be super paranoid about hackers and viruses and shit like that, but it's not like those things are looking for regular, everyday users and even if they did get in my system, I don't keep anything important on my computer so I can just wipe it all out and reinstall everything.

[–] Fizz 1 points 1 year ago

Heaps

[–] milkjug@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

80, 443 for HTTP/S, and 587 for a VPN service. Reason being that I travel frequently, and often have to connect through a bunch of different networks, Airport WiFi, mobile roaming, hotel WiFi, etc. and you never know the kinds of network restrictions they impose on their pipes.

80 and 443 is least likely to be dropped, while 587 is a common SMTP port that could make it through most networks.

[–] netburnr@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

32400

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›