35
Am I doing this (networking) safely? (lemy.lol)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 3 points 9 months ago* (7 children)
  1. Have the router to block portscanners

What do you mean by this? Closing unused ports?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Delays? Jitter? What are you talking about?

    Didn't you say you have whitelist of allowed ips? Why don't you just drop any other inbound traffic?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    whitelist of allowed ips

    Not exactly.

    If source is whitelisted, Accept (avoid being locked out myself)

    So all IP's are allowed to begin with, but some ("my" IP's like at home, my office etc) are on a whitelist ahead of everything else. They can't become blacklisted to avoid myself becoming locked out. Then it's the drop all on the blacklisted, followed by portscan detection. Only after that the 'normal' rules (allow https, smtp etc) begin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent