this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
50 points (98.1% liked)

Selfhosted

40347 readers
351 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
 

Hello peoples,

I am looking for tips on how to make my self-hosted setup as safe as possible.

Some background: I started self-hosting some services about a year ago, using an old lenovo thin client. It's plenty powerful for what I'm asking it to do, and it's not too loud. Hardware wise I am not expecting to change things up any time soon.

I am not expecting anyone to take the time to baby me through the process, I will be more than happy with some links to good articles and the like. My main problem is that there's so much information out there, I just don't know where to start or what to trust.

Anyways, thank you for reading.

N

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] genie@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'll assume you mean what I mean when I say I want to be safe with my self hosting -- that is, "safe" but also easily accessible enough that my friends/family don't balk the first time they try to log in or reset their password. There are all kinds of strategies you can use to protect your data, but I'll cover the few that I find to be reasonable.

  1. Port Forwarding -- as someone mentioned already, port forwarding raw internet traffic to a server is probably a bad idea based on the information given. Especially since it isn't strictly necessary.

  2. Consumer Grade Tunnel Services -- I'm sure there are others, but cloudflare tunnels can be a safer option of exposing a service to the public internet.

  3. Personal VPN (my pick) -- if your number of users is small, it may be easiest to set up a private VPN. This has the added benefit of making things like PiHole available to all of your devices wherever you go. Popular options include Tailscale (easiest, but relies on trusting Tailscale) or Wireguard/OpenVPN (bare bones with excellent documentation). I think there are similar options to tailscale through NordVPN (and probably others), where it "magically" handles connecting your devices but then you face a ~5 device limit.

With Wireguard or OpenVPN you may ask: "How do I do that without opening a port? You just said that was a bad idea!" Well, the best way that I have come up with is to use a VPS (providers include Digital Ocean, Linode to name a few) where you typically get a public IP address for free (as in free beer). You still have a public port open in your virtual private network, but it's an acceptable risk (in my mind, for my threat model) given it's on a machine that you don't own or care about. You can wipe that VPS machine any time you want, the cost is time.

It's all a trade-off. You can go to much further lengths than I've described here to be "safer" but this is the threshold that I've found to be easy and Good Enough for Me™.

If I were starting over I would start with Tailscale and work up from there. There are many many good options and only you can decide which one is best for your situation!

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Port Forwarding – as someone mentioned already, port forwarding raw internet traffic to a server is probably a bad idea based on the information given. Especially since it isn’t strictly necessary.

I don't mean to take issue with you specifically, but I see this stated in this community a lot.

For newbies I can agree with the sentiment "generally" - but this community seems to have gotten into some weird cargo-cult style thinking about this. "Port forwarding" is not a bad idea end of discussion. It's a bad idea to expose a service if you haven't taken any security precautions for on a system that is not being maintained. But exposing a wireguard service on a system which you keep up-to-date is not inherently a bad thing. Bonus points if VPN is all it does and has restricted local accounts.

In fact of all the services homegamers talk about running in their homelab wireguard is one of the safest to expose to the internet. It has no "well-known port" so it's difficult to scan for. It uses UDP which is also difficult to scan for. It has great community support so there will be security patches. It's very difficult to configure in an insecure way (I can't even think of how one can). And it requires public/private key auth rather than allowing user-generated passwords. They don't even allow you to pick insecure encryption algorithms like other VPNs do. It's a great choice for a home VPN.

[–] genie@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You make a great point. I really shouldn't contribute to the boogeyman-ification of port forwarding.

I certainly agree there is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous with port forwarding in and of itself. It's like saying a hammer is bad. Not true in the slightest! A newbie swinging it around like there's no tomorrow might smack their fingers a few times, but that's no fault of hammer :)

Port forwarding is a tool, and is great/necessary for many jobs. For my use case I love that Wireguard offers a great alternative that: completes my goal, forces the use of keys, and makes it easy to do so.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Glad you didn't take my comment as being "aggressive" since it certainly wasn't meant to be. :-)

Wireguard is a game-changer to me. Any other VPN I've tried to setup makes the user make too many decisions that require a fair amount of knowledge. Just by making good decisions on your behalf and simplifying the configuration they've done a great job of helping to secure the internet. An often overlooked piece of security is that "making it easier to do something the right way is good for security."

[–] genie@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Right!! Just like anything there's a trade-off.

Glad you phrased the well-intentioned (and fair) critique in a kind way! I love it when there's good discourse around these topics

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

With Wireguard or OpenVPN you may ask: “How do I do that without opening a port? You just said that was a bad idea!”

There's a BIG difference here. Don’t be afraid to expose the Wireguard port because if someone tried to connect and they don’t authenticate with the right key the server will silently drop the packets.

We require authentication in the first handshake message sent because it does not require allocating any state on the server for potentially unauthentic messages. In fact, the server does not even respond at all to an unauthorized client; it is silent and invisible. The handshake avoids a denial of service vulnerability created by allowing any state to be created in response to packets that have not yet been authenticated. https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/

OpenVPN is very noisy and you'll know if someone is running it on a specific port while Wireguard you'll have no way to tell it's running.