To mitigate the effort to maintain my personal server, I am considering to only expose ssh port to the outside and use its socks proxy to reach other services. is Portknocking enough to reduce surface of attack to the minimum?
You must log in or register to comment.
In your SSH config, you should disallow root login and password authentication.
It is more secure than these tommyknockers :-) but you can do that additionally, if you feel like it.
Other then the slowly increasing log file (if you use fail2ban for example), it will take thousands of years to actually hack you through this method as long as root auth is disabled and authentication is only via SSH keys, I wouldn’t worry about it.
It is possible to tighten the security of a machine to the point it is no longer usable. It is important to secure our devices but we cannot forget about convenience, so the trick is to tighten it but also make it so you don’t have to jump through a number of hoops till you get to your destination.
I for example, wouldn’t use your method because it would make it difficult to use some services I host from my phone.
Port knockers for the most part aren’t worrying. In an ideal situation, the only ports that should be open are 22, 80, 443 and using a reverse proxy to mask headers. (Poor configuration for example, go to Shodan and type bitwarden in the search bar and see how many people expose their instances to the world carelessly without an SSL cert) and the occasional UDP for game servers/media servers.
just use tailscale
I would only expose a VPN and use that to access the other services.
Why? There’s no downside to ssh, if anything it’s easier to set up.
A VPN would give you access to a network, but not necessarily the devices on that network. It adds another layer of security as the user not only has to have SSH credentials/keys, but they also have to have the same for the VPN. SSH and VPNs would really be used in conjunction with each other.
It’s onion security.
If you only want to provide ssh access to one host, sure. If you want to provide other services, on multiple hosts, then you’re either making it a jump box or a proxy, while a VPN would provide direct access (or at least as defined in the firewall and routing rules).
I used to SSH into my server and proxy out from there. Then I learned how shit of a solution that is for daily use and set up a vpn like a normal person.
What kind of port knocking just going to ports in sequence? Or someone wrote one that looks for a key signed and is supposedly not replayable.
I use a vps running openvps. Then i only allow ssh access from my vpn ip address.
Instead of ssh I use wireguard directly. It’s a simple protocol based on public/private keys with great performance and security.
Wireguard is stateless and establishes connections really quickly on demand. This means the battery isn’t impacted even though it’s always on, since the VPN doesn’t have to maintain a constant connection. At least that’s the case if your routing only a specific subnet (e.g. 192.168.1.0/24 and not all traffic through it 0.0.0.0/0).
Sounds like security through obscurity to me.
Highly susceptible to replay and man in the middle attacks.
If you’re gonna combine that with another authentication method (and you should), then I see little advantage over just going with the other auth method.
Highly susceptible to replay and man in the middle attacks.
fwknopisn’t susceptible to either.
