136
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
136 points (98.6% liked)
Selfhosted
39937 readers
322 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 posting.
-
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.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imagine that the xz exploit actually made it into your server, so your sshd was vulnerable. Having it on another port does seem helpful then. In fact i sometimes think of putting mine on a random secret address in the middle of a /64 ipv6 range, but I haven't done that yet.
it occurs to me, the xz exploit and similar is a good reason not to run the latest software. It affected Debian Sid but not the stable releases. I'm glad I only run the stable ones.
Just have 2 ipv4 assigned to your server. Have 1 for all your services, and run ssh on the other allowing root login with the password "admin".
A random ipv6 in the same subnet as your server is just obscurity.
The XZ exploit would be functionally similar to allowing root login using the password "admin".
Would doing that on a different port be secure? No? Then a different port is not security, it's obscurity.
Obscurity is just going to trip you up at some point and reduce log chatter.
And yes, running LTSB/stable is a sensible choice for servers.
Nope. Your entire server can be scanned in less than a second for an open ssh port.
IPv6 does not change the fact since when your server is attacked the hist IP is already known.
Maybe I'm missing something but how is the host ip known? The server has a maybe-known range of addresses, but I don't announce which address has an sshd listening. There are 2**64 addresses in the range, so scanning in 1 second doesn't sound feasible.
I've never seen an attack that scans all ports. Normally it just checks open ports and then tries common credentials and exploits. If that fails it moves on to the next IP.
Changing the default port on SSH probably isn't going to do much as SSH is already pretty secure. However it is a good rule of thumb to change the defaults.
The XZ backdoor was not exploited so it is hard to say what would of been effective.
The important thing to note is changing the defaults on systems. Defaults are bad because it makes it easy to take over a large number of systems easily. Even right now there are bots testing common ports for weaknesses.