In the past two weeks I set up a new VPS, and I run a small experiment. I share the results for those who are curious.

Consider that this is a backup server only, meaning that there is no outgoing traffic unless a backup is actually to be recovered, or as we will see, because of sshd.

I initially left the standard “port 22 open to the world” for 4-5 days, I then moved sshd to a different port (still open to the whole world), and finally I closed everything and turned on tailscale. You find a visualization of the resulting egress traffic in the image. Different colors are different areas of the world. Ignore the orange spikes which were my own ssh connections to set up stuff.

Main points:

  • there were about 10 Mb of egress per day due just to sshd answering to scanners. Not to mention the cluttering of access logs.

  • moving to a non standard port is reasonably sufficient to avoid traffic and log cluttering even without IP restrictions

  • Tailscale causes a bit of traffic, negligible of course, but continuous.

  • Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyzB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

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

    Fewer Letters More Letters
    DNS Domain Name Service/System
    HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web
    IP Internet Protocol
    SSH Secure Shell for remote terminal access
    UDP User Datagram Protocol, for real-time communications
    VPN Virtual Private Network
    VPS Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)
    nginx Popular HTTP server

    7 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 8 acronyms.

    [Thread #42 for this sub, first seen 14th Aug 2023, 15:55] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

  • James@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Public key auth, and fail2ban on an extremely strict mode with scaling bantime works well enough for me to leave 22 open.

    Fail2ban will ban people for even checking if the port is open.

    • devtimi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honest question, is there a good default config available somewhere or is what apt install fail2ban does good to go? All the tutorials I’ve found have left it to the reader to configure their own rules.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Fail2Ban is so important, why the h*** does it not come installed and enabled as standard?!

      Security is the number-1 priority for any OS, and yet stock SSHD apparently does not have Fail2Ban-level security built in. My conclusion is that Fail2Ban cannot therefore be that vital.

  • z3bra@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get what you say, and you’re definitely not wrong to do it. But as I see it, you only saved ~80Kib of ingress and a few lines of logs in the end. From my monitoring I get ~5000 failed auth per day, which account for less than 1Mbps average bandwidth for the day.

    It’s not like it’s consuming my 1Gbps bandwidth or threatening me as I enforce ssh key login. I like to keep things simple, and ssh on port 22 over internet makes it easy to access my boxes from anywhere.

    • oatscoop@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t get why people leave interfaces the public doesn’t need access to open to the public – especially SSH.

      Use a VPN if you need access to those interfaces from the “outside”. They’re stupidly easy to set up these days, particularly with Wireguard.

      • z3bra@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A VPN is easy to setup (and I have it setup by the way), but no VPN is even easier. SSH by itself is sufficiently secure if you keep it up to date with a sane configuration. Bots poking at my ssh port is not something that bother me at all, and not part of any attack vector I want to be secure against.

        Out of all the services I expose to the clear web, SSH is probably the one I trust the most.

    • aesir@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ssh -p 12345 would leave your boxes accessible from anywhere too. Other blocks of IPs receive 10 times or more requests, as scanners can focus on blocks of ips from major providers.

      • z3bra@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I know, I just don’t really care about that traffic to bother changing it :) Also, I’m talking about a server hosted on Hetzner, so I feel like it’s scanned a lot.

  • u_tamtam@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or, you know, just use key auth only and fail2ban. Putting sshd behind another port only buys you a little time.

    • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but the majority of bots out there are going after easy prey. Honestly, if you use public key authentication with ssh you should be fine, even if it is on port 22. But it does of course clog up access logs.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The majority of bots out there are stopped by just using a hard to guess password. It’s not them that you should be worried about.

        • aard@kyu.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The majority of bots doesn’t even show up in the logs if you disable password auth in the server config, as you typically should.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I opened a raw text channel on the Telnet port for a personal game engine project and someone tried to enable commands and do some shady stuff. Unfortunately for them, that’s not a valid chess move.

  • spagnod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just do it properly and configure sshd securely. When you have a machine exposed to the internet, you should expect it to be attacked. If you really want to give the finger to bots, run endlessh on port 22 and keep sshd on a non-standard port. Stay safe.

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Computers communicate across networks using ports. Port 22 is a commonly used remote administration port called ssh. Bots go around probing computers with an open port 22 hoping to find badly secured or outside misconfigured ssh servers to turn them into bots and crypto miners, etc.

  • Clou42@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll take that tiny amount of traffic telling scanners there’s no password auth over having to remember port settings for ssh, scp and rsync any day.

    • lando55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me it’s not about the traffic, more the log spam.

      Generally I’ll have :22 enabled internally, and anything non-standard is defined in ~/.ssh/config and shared out so I don’t have to remember things.

    • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? PiVPN is easy AF and uses WireGuard. No reason not to set up something yourself if you’re already selfhosting.

      • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please ELI5: How does this solution work? You tunnel yourself in your home network with a VPN on your PI? How is that safer, isn’t there still a port open?

        • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have a port open, yes, but it’s not port 22. The problem with Tailscale is you’re trusting a third party. With my setup, it’s just me connecting directly to my Pi. Thanks to port forwarding the only open port pointing to my Pi is the one that I use for WireGuard.

          I already have a DDNS and domain name pointing to my house, so there’s effectively no added risk compared to my existing setup with a couple webapps being reverse proxied behind Caddy on a different device.

            • hatedbad@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              no, and that’s be a pretty bad idea, you’re opening up all your internal hosts to the public internet.

              a VPN is specifically designed to keep all your internal hosts off the public internet. When you authenticate with the VPN server the remote device you are using effectively “joins” the internal network, using the VPN to act like a tunnel between you and your network.

              it has the benefits of better security as well as the fact that once you set it up, you can access any services you host, not just HTTP ones.

  • notabot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You really shouldn’t have something kike SSHD open to the world, that’s just an unnecessary atrack surface. Instead, run a VPN on the server (or even one for a network if you have several servers on one subnet), connect to that then ssh to your server. The advantage is that a well setup VPN simply won’t respond to an invalid connection, and to an attacker, looks just like the firewall dropping the packet. Wireguard is good for this, and easy to configure. OpenVPN is pretty solid too.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You say this and are downvoted.

      While we are coming off the tail of Def Con where there where a plethora or small talks and live examples of taking advantage and abusing just this.

      • TheLemming@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand your comment, what you are saying. Could you elaborate a bit, please? I’m interested why it’s a bad idea what previous comment suggested.

        Of course I can dig into DefCon videos and probably would do if needed, but perhaps you know what exactly the issue is

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The first this means the comment he answered to and the second one means ssh being used as an attack surface, being described in defCon talks

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but worse cause it’s company owned and not really open source. Why do people use tailscale? Are you so desperate to pay money for it?

  • 30p87@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have port 22 open on my PI, every connection failing for some reason after one try, let it be trying to use a password, wrong user or even root, is instantly reported to abuseipdb and rerouted to endlessh