Essentially, log spam… But also an irrational fear of a security breach.
Comment on I’m looking for the best remote access solution that works for me
7EP6vuI@feddit.org 18 hours ago
why don’t you want to open an ssh port? what’s wrong with that?
just disable password authentication, and maybe get fail2ban. am i missing something?
SanPe_@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
lntl@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
IMO ssh is the tool you’re describing. My ssh server is exposed to the WAN and is configured like this:
- set to a random port to reduce spam (completely eliminated it for me)
- set
PasswordAuthentication no - set
PermitRootLogin no
7EP6vuI@feddit.org 13 hours ago
why no root login? how do you become root if you need it?
lntl@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
IMO there’s no reason to permit root login via ssh in any circumstance, ever, in all cases, absolutely.
For all the people thinking, “well the world doesn’t work in absolutes, there’s always a special case!” There isn’t.
If a user needs to use elevated permissions, there are many ways to do that without exposing root. sudo(8) is one way to do that.
Guiorgy@lemmy.ml 7 hours ago
Without root user login, the attacker would have to guess not only the password to the user but also the username (hopefully it’s not something simple like admin), and once you are logged in you can use sudo -i to chage into root, which will require a password, therefore, we also disable password login so if someone does manage to somehow compromise the SSH user, they’d still need the password to become root.
lewy@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
sudo -iis what I would do orsu rootif your other user is not a superuser.
Guiorgy@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
You could spin a publicly exposed WireGuard daemon firewalled to allow peers access to the non-public SSH port only, which would result in double encryption, but would give you the peace of mind that an attacker would have to compromise both at the same time, which is very unlikely. Plus, WireGuard is very cheap to deploy and produces no logs. We use that model in my office to access our server.
neidu4@piefed.social 18 hours ago
Optional extra, which I do: Change the SSH port to something non-standard. It’s not more secure, but it does cut down on the logspam.
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 8 hours ago
I’d argue it’s even more secure, as it reduces the amount of attacks you are exposed to. For targeted attacks it changes absolutely nothing. But it keeps you our of a few DBs and spares some brute force attacks.