31
submitted 18 hours ago by nibbs@lemmy.zip to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

Hi there, I am hosting a service for mainly me and also some family members. I want it to become more.

Currently the chain just as follows: interwebz <-> UDM <-> npm <-> services. The services are mostly run in VMs or LXCs, npm runs in docker, accompanied by one Adguard home instance and another AGH instance in an LXC.

I now want to add f2b to this whole chain. I've installed f2b in the OS which runs docker (and therefore npm) (VM1) and also in the OS of my existing service (VM2). Both VMs use Ubuntu as their OS.

What I already figured out thru testing and reading is, that f2b in VM2 acts as expected when the jail is triggered, and sets the block. But nftables/ufw don't block connections coming from external, as they are coming thru npm. f2b sees and uses the public IP for the checks/bans.

So now I am thinking how to solve that.

  1. Keep f2b on VM2 and let it set the bans on VM1 over SSH. That's what some people do or so I've read.
  2. Use f2b on VM1, let it check logs on VM2 and then set the bans. That would also be possible over SSH, I'd guess. But I didn't read up on it yet.

So, what's your opinion? How do you fine folks handle that in your environment? Option 2 seems to be more elegant, as it would be "at the entry" and let's me easily add additional services later. But I don't know, if that's a path worth digging in to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nibbs@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

Thanks for bringing it up.

Before I dove into that project, I was checking logs on npm and the service I am already exposing. It seems to me, both only get http GET requests which on npm all get a 404 response.
I don't remember what the service does with those, but I will investigate later. As I didn't panicked, I guess it wasn't that bad.

There are basically no brute force attacks on the service yet and the admin account is only allowed to login from internal IPs.

One initial aspect to further harden the exposed systems were the logs in the UDM which show frequent blocked attempts of varying severity.
This may be security theater and I am not able to assess whether the UDM is a "good enough" protection of the most common attacks.

As I see it, at the moment the UDM already blocks most of the (more sophisticated) attacks and leaves only common requests for the services to handle.

Long story short, as I see it, the UDM has the role of ingress server in my setup.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
31 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

61475 readers
1140 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