this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
141 points (96.7% liked)

Selfhosted

40152 readers
435 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 posting.

  3. 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.

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

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
141
What types of services are you not willing to self-host? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Tinnitus@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For example, something that is too complex for your comfort level, a security concern, or maybe your hardware can’t keep up with the service’s needs?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Anafroj@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Gladly, fail2ban exists. :) Note that it's not just smtp anyway. Anything on port 22 (ssh) or 80/443 (http/https) get constantly tested as well. I've actually set up fail2ban rules to ban anyone who is querying / on my webserver, it catches of lot of those pests.

[–] mrms@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This method supposedly works great too.

http://uu.ucw.cz/

[–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Om going to try that as well

[–] stardreamer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

CrowdSec has completely replaced fail2ban for me. It's a bit harder to setup but it's way more flexible with bans/statistics/etc. Also uses less ram.

It's also fun to watch the ban counter go up for things that I would never think about configuring on fail2ban, such as nginx CVEs.

Edit: fixed url. Oops!

[–] Anafroj@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for mentioning it, I didn't know about it. Protecting against CVEs sounds indeed awesome. I took a more brutal approach to fix the constant pentesting : I ban everyone who triggers a 404. :D Of course, this only work because it's a private server, only meant to be accessed by me and people with deep links. I've whitelisted IPs commonly used by my relatives, and I've made a log parser that warns me when those IPs trigger a 404, which let me know if there are legit ones, and is also a great way to find problems in my applications. But of course, this wouldn't fly on a public server. :)

Note for others reading this, the correct link is CrowdSec