Comment on How do you all handle security and monitoring for your publicly accessible services?
Xanza@lemm.ee 3 days agoIf somebody needs to have services accessible by someone else besides him, that service can’t be behind a VPN
Again, this is the reason VPS’ exist. If that person needs access, then setup Wireguard…
It’s like saying you don’t need a front gate with an access code because then you would have to give out your own access code. But I mean, the lock has the ability to setup more access codes. And you’re saying the only viable option is the leave the gate open and hire a guard to manage access. It’s just… Weird and wrong.
peregus@lemmy.world 3 days ago
What? What’s the difference between a VPS and your home server? You may say that’s a good practice to separate things, so maybe have a a VM with public facing services and another with more private stuff reachable only with a VPN. But for something like Nextcloud, it needs to be public (if you’re not the only one using it), but it contains personal stuff and then comes the OP request!
Xanza@lemm.ee 3 days ago
You’re missing the point. VPS isn’t about separating anything… I’m not even sure what you mean by that. VPS is the accepted practice here. Unquestionably. You create private services, and for security you only expose them to the least amount of people possible. You authenticate via VPS connections. You only have to maintain a single database of users to access any number of services, even tens of thousands.
OP is specifically talking about hosting local content that they want to protect. VPS is the solution here.
peregus@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Well…if you edit your post after someone has replied to it at least specify what’s you’ve edited and don’t pretend that the answer that somebody else has already given you wasn’t about your non edited post!
If you (my mistake) wrote VPS instead of VPN, you can’t pretend that I’ve answered about VPN!
If you can convince your family member and your friends to use a VPN to use your service, that’s good for you, and I mean it!
But saying that it’s quite impossible to do that, I think that I’m speaking for 99% of the self hoster (is this correct in English? Bah, you got me!)
Xanza@lemm.ee 3 days ago
The entire point of selfhost is to host private services not available to the public. By literal definition, that’s allowing only local traffic to connect to your services. It’s infinitely more secure. A VPN allows you to extend those services over the clearnet to authorized devices via virtualized networks. You don’t have to worry about messing with inbound/outbound ports, or worrying about software failure or misconfigurations accidentally exposing you to the clearnet. You don’t have to worry about DDoS, or abuse. Being attacked? Bring down your VPN and that completely shuts down your issue. Your network is completely unreachable by anyone but a local host.
There’s simply no room for an argument. VPN is objectively better in all possible situations.