Selfhosted

60093 readers

626 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam.
Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, and your account is at least 30 days old, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Am I doing this (networking) safely? (lemy.lol)

submitted 4 months ago by flork@lemy.lol to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

26 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

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months 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 5 points 4 months ago (1 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.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 3 points 4 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.