this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
298 points (98.1% liked)

Selfhosted

62026 readers
923 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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Welp. My Forgejo instance got popped with an RCE two days ago by CVE-2026-60004. Luckily, I noticed the following morning and had the day free to figure out what happened. Let's dive in!

As a homelab enthusiast, I found this a very interesting post. Here are my take aways from the post that I'm implementing myself:

  • Miner detection. I've updated monitoring rules to now watch the CPU on my hosts. If the same thing happened to me I would not have been alerted at all as I'm doing simple up / down monitoring. Fixed.
  • Access logging. I turned on access logging for my homelab Caddy instances.
  • Log retention. I have increased the amount and retention of my logging. The hope is this will help me reconstruct what happened after a breach.
  • Logs offsite. The VPS access logs now ride along with the normal backup process, which runs hourly. The homelab side still only gets caught by the weekly VM backup, so that's next.
  • Closed an open signup. My webtrees instance (genealogy) had self registration enabled, which is the same door this guy got hit through. Oops. Fixed.
  • Built a tool. log-inventory.sh, so "could I actually reconstruct what happened" is a command I run instead of a thing I assume.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 96 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I don't think I will ever be convinced to leave anything on my home network open to the internet no matter how convenient it is.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's fairly safe as long as you add a strong enough form of access control. For example if you put it behind a VPN, or a SSH tunnel, or require mTLS. Even a key in a custom HTTP header or Basic HTTP auth can be good enough if the key is strong enough.

You can further decrease the probability of drive-by bots reaching a publicly exposed service by merely scanning IPs and ports if you use a reverse proxy and hide your service FQDNs and IP.

You can do this by using TLS certs on wildcard domains rather than explicit domains, using explicit CNAMEs for the service subdomains rather than a wildcard domain, and keeping the A/AAAA records on an obfuscated subdomain rather than the base domain. If the bots can't figure out a FQDN they're not getting past the reverse proxy even if they find the IP and port.

This is obfuscation not real security but it cuts down tremendously on bot hits.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wouldn't count "behind a VPN" as "open to the internet".

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

The VPN service is open to the Internet. But it's only one service, versus however many things you are running behind it.

[–] hietsu@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago

I have knockd listening on one very high port number, and only after accessing that reverse proxy whitelists the source ip. Sure some scanners might do a full port scan and try http only after that, but FQDN is required too. Plus I have geo ip list blocking all but my country. Oh and Crowdsec. So far so good..

[–] leds@feddit.dk 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I gave up , don't have the time to maintain it anymore. Changed DNS to make my domain point to local lan IP so everything still works but only at home.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I wonder if the person who downvoted you thought you pointed your public DNS record to a 192.168 network, instead of making a change to your local DNS server like I'm assuming you did.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you want https it's gotta be a external DNS record anyway, might as well point to internal ips

Depending on how paranoid your setup is not everything will use the DHCP provided DNS servers

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 days ago

If you want https it's gotta be a external DNS record anyway

Not sure what you mean by that, but off the top of my head, you can get certificates via challenges that prove DNS control (rather than checking if the DNS points to your server), and you can get wildcard certificates so you don't even have to expose the existence of subdomains.

And that's ignoring the option of using your own CA, which only really works with your own devices, but for local access might be viable.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 4 points 2 days ago

No it doesn't. I run https with my own CA server.

[–] UnfairUtan@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Meanwhile my entire "homelab" except for HA is hosted on a VPS

[–] gedfromgont@piefed.ca 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah same. I am really bad at keeping stuff updated so I rather keep it local too.