this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
79 points (96.5% liked)

Selfhosted

60093 readers
955 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.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. 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 7 days old, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So it's my first time setting up a VPS. Is it to be expected to ban 54 IPs over a 12h timespan? The real question for me is whether this is normal or too much.

$ sudo fail2ban-client status sshd
Status for the jail: sshd
|- Filter
|  |- Currently failed: 3
|  |- Total failed:     586
|  `- Journal matches:  _SYSTEMD_UNIT=ssh.service + _COMM=sshd
`- Actions
   |- Currently banned: 51
   |- Total banned:     54
   `- Banned IP list:   [list of IPs]

fail2ban sshd.conf

$ sudo cat /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/sshd.conf 
[sshd]
enabled = true
mode = aggressive
port = ssh
backend = systemd
maxretry = 3
findtime = 600
bantime = 86400

I have disabled SSH login via password. And only allow it over an SSH key.

$ sudo sshd -T | grep -E -i 'ChallengeResponseAuthentication|PasswordAuthentication|UsePAM|PermitRootLogin'
usepam no
permitrootlogin no
passwordauthentication no
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pgo_lemmy@feddit.it 60 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Normal background noise. ssh is a well known protocol/port and scanning is automated.

[–] tanka@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I thought so much. But I sort of wanted to be sure. ^^

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 month ago

Pretty much on the low side, but you've not been up long. Using key based login you're fine.

[–] BlueBockser@programming.dev 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

If you have a public IPv4 address and use port 22, you'll see lots of login attempts. I wouldn't worry about it, given that you've disabled password login. ~~The only thing I would advise is to disable root login as well (if not done already).~~ Edit: Just saw you've already disabled root login.

If you'd like to reduce the noise somewhat, consider changing to a randomly chosen high port. I've done this with my VPS and hardly get any login attempts.

[–] tanka@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

Yes, I disabled root login, but the port change is a good idea. Thanks.

[–] androidul@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

port knocking is still there btw

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I love the concept of port knocking, but it seems like a lot of overhead if the client apps themselves don't support it.

Now if the SSH client could take a parameter called knock_on_this port, that would be awesome.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Setting the SSH service to a random high port doesn't make security better and may make security worse. Linux has a restriction that low numbered ports require special permissions but high numbered ports do not. If an attacker manages to get low privilege code execution on your machine, they may manage to bind their service to the SSH port instead. If the server and client are configured correctly, this will cause a host key mismatch error. Continuing anyway could allow the attacker to take over your account on the server. It's unlikely unless you are a high value target.

[–] BlueBockser@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

I never claimed it would make security better. I said it would reduce noise, and it does.

[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yeah. Sounds about right.

First of all disable root login over ssh. Second, move your ssh from port 22 to another port of your liking. Third, disable password authentication altogether and use only solid certificates.

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Switching SSH to a non-standard port can cut down on log noise but it doesn't really help with security. It's trivial to identify ssh running on any port and attackers typically do full port scans anyway.

I'd put that effort towards allowlisting only trusted public ips or setting up wireguard/tailscale for ssh access instead.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Root login and password authentication are already disabled, and it's very uncommon for self hosters to use SSH certificates at all.

Changing the SSH port away from 22 does not improve security unless your password is "password" or "admin". Anybody who's even slightly sophisticated will find your SSH service on the correct port and make requests there instead.

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 month ago

I don't think changing the port has the intention of better security here, just reduces the amount of requests that dumb bots make. It's noticable if you try it.

[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 7 points 1 month ago

Yes, I meant ssh private/public keys, not certificates ...

And changing the port reduces the amount of attempts in any case.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

They're portscanning bots.

I made SSH IPv6-only and it stopped. You can't scan IPv6 space for open ports.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

You technically can scan IPv6

It is just less common

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My question too, pretty sure you can

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The smallest possible subnet has 18.4 quintillion addresses.

You can't scan it before encountering the heat death of the universe.

Outgoing connections are made on a different address that does not accept incoming connections. You never disclose your real IP when browsing.

So, no. It can't be done.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's only if you use the brute force method

IPs are not secret and can be leaked in various ways. Don't count on IPv6 as a security mechanism as that's not what it was designed to do

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago

I personally wouldn't waste your time with bans

Enable public key authentication and disable passwords

[–] clb92@feddit.dk 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Seems likely. Cheap VPSs are often used by beginners, so they're prime targets for hackers. Known VPS IP-ranges probably get hammered constantly by hackers, who are hoping you set up a service temporarily without enabling any security, or perhaps with a weak temporary password of 1234 or something.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (10 children)

That's very little actually

Move your SSH port from the standard 22 to one of the higher ones, like 53822

It'll remove 99.something% of your attacks as nobody bothers with those ports.

[–] cantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I do this too; I changed the actual port to something random and run endlessh-go on 22 to tarpit the skiddies

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] bizdelnick@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, it is normal.

# fail2ban-client status sshd
Status for the jail: sshd
|- Filter
|  |- Currently failed: 10
|  |- Total failed:     4433
|  `- Journal matches:  _SYSTEMD_UNIT=ssh.service + _COMM=sshd
`- Actions
   |- Currently banned: 27
   |- Total banned:     668
   `- Banned IP list:   2.57.122.194 45.148.10.183 195.178.110.30 2.57.122.208 92.118.39.195 103.74.123.88 92.118.39.23 2.57.122.196 92.118.39.197 45.148.10.151 92.118.39.236 178.20.210.185 68.178.161.186 80.94.92.183 92.118.39.63 2.57.122.197 2.57.122.191 2.57.122.189 80.94.92.171 94.156.152.18 14.225.7.70 45.78.198.199 211.253.9.160 159.224.213.138 1.214.42.172 103.239.165.114 77.239.111.233
[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago
[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's not a lot even. I've seen much worse. Also with password disabled. Some idiot bots still try to send it whole password lists.

Just move your SSH to another port, that is enough to get rid of most of the nuisance scans. Or allow SSH only on IPv6. That usually covers it (The IPv6 address space is too big to scan, unless you have a TLD directly pointing to your IPv6)

What I personally do is run an overlay VPN like tailscale and allow SSH in only via that.

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

What I personally do is run an overlay VPN like tailscale and allow SSH in only via that.

Same. I use Tailscale as an overlay on the pFsense box and the server itself.

[–] julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago

I deactivated the SSH daemon on my VPS and only use Tailscale SSH

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Rookie numbers.

My favourite f2b rule is the one strike ban on SSH root login attempts. Any IP originating a SSH root login attempt is clearly compromised, and gets black holed on all my hosts for a month.

Note: direct SSH login isn’t permitted at all, the daemon is exposed purely to log the attempts.

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

a month.

I do it for a whole year. lol

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The actual span is a random period between 2 and 4 weeks, it’s interesting to watch how long it takes for attempts to resume.

I prefer a more granular visibility, repeat offenders automagically ratchet up their stay in the sin bin.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thagoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago
[–] sanitation@lemmy.radio 4 points 1 month ago

Totally normal

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

I got 135 blocks via sshguard over the first 12 hours today. So, yeah, welcome to the Internet! 😄

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just 54? Those are rookie numbers bro. You need to open up a few more ports. LOL Honestly tho, seems pretty standard. You could change the SSH port which might lower some of the noise but bots now days are pretty sophisticated and it would be trivial to just scan your server and find out which port is SSH. If you want to stop tailing fail2ban nervously on the daily, you could use the hosts.allow/hosts.deny which would lock it down even further. Just remember to set host.allow first then host.deny. You could also deploy any number of secondary security packages like CrowdSec, Wazuh, et al.

[–] mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

imagine the modern internet like a school yard of a very large school during recess, and it has just snowed.

Now imagine having ssh on port 22 as you a wearing a bright red wooly cap and standing in the middle of the yard jumping up and down and waving hands.

[–] Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web
HTTPS HTTP over SSL
IP Internet Protocol
SSH Secure Shell for remote terminal access
SSL Secure Sockets Layer, for transparent encryption
VPN Virtual Private Network
VPS Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)

5 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 7 acronyms.

[Thread #278 for this comm, first seen 7th May 2026, 12:00] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

load more comments
view more: next ›