Why would a local server even have open internet access though?
This alerts feel more relevant for public facing servers.
Update all your stuff, NOW - again.
Submitted 2 hours ago by smiletolerantly@awful.systems to selfhosted@lemmy.world
Comments
ComradeMiao@lemmy.world 22 minutes ago
tal@lemmy.today 22 minutes ago did you get hacked? check.
$ grep “Accepted password” /var/log/messages
That’s a really bad check unless you have an external box receiving logs and you’re looking there, because the first thing that a sophisticated attacker is going to do if they get in as root is remove the signs of their presence.
Orygin@sh.itjust.works 21 minutes ago
OP I know you’re trying to do good, but please try to understand the vulnerability before spreading FUD
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 minutes ago
If I’m running containers on Alpine, doesn’t that mean that they already don’t offer SSH (sshd)? The entire point of Alpine as a base is to not add stuff you don’t need.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 hour ago
tenchiken@anarchist.nexus 40 minutes ago Everything behind a good firewall and proxy.
No public facing url should ever not be proxied.
Only ports you explicitly forward. Ever.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 48 minutes ago
I’m no cybersecurity expert, but from what I’ve heard from those who are, this is the new normal as anyone who formerly had no chance due to being a “script kiddie” can now just prompt an AI to “hack this system” and eventually find a vulnerability.
qaz@lemmy.world 43 minutes ago
Most containers don’t run ssh right?
tofu@lemmy.nocturnal.garden 1 hour ago
I mean, not that it’s not severe, but which container images have ssh baked in? If you’re using good stripped down images, you’re fine here.
Not sure where the overlap is between"ssh is enabled" and “one of those OSes”. LXCs maybe?
ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 hour ago
SSH enabled and the SSH port of the container accessible.
HelloRoot@lemy.lol 1 hour ago
Maybe something like git forges and gist alternatives?
qaz@lemmy.world 41 minutes ago
I wonder if Forgejo / Gitea instances are vulnerable
tofu@lemmy.nocturnal.garden 42 minutes ago
Good Point! I’ll check if my forgejo container has password auth enabled. :D It’s LAN only though.
rtxn@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
That website is atrocious. It’s the web design equivalent of shoving five kilograms of sugar in a cup of coffee.
- tal@lemmy.today 33 minutes ago
Now, now. Starbucks is a very successful business.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 23 minutes ago
Oh, daaamn. Haha
rtxn@lemmy.world 16 minutes ago
Yes, it was a stroke of genius to label their mediocre confectionery as “coffee”, although it can lead to near fatalities when someone who’s only ever had Starbucks encounters real coffee for the first time.
Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyz 24 minutes ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters More Letters Git Popular version control system, primarily for code LXC Linux Containers SSH Secure Shell for remote terminal access
[Thread #159 for this comm, first seen 5th Nov 2026, 15:30] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
tapdattl@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
I’m assuming this is only if you allow password authentication? If you’re only allowing certificate based auth you should be safe, right?
HelloRoot@lemy.lol 1 hour ago
Yep
smiletolerantly@awful.systems 1 hour ago
NO! Exactly the opposite, that is the problem. Key-only is a prerequisite for this.
smiletolerantly@awful.systems 1 hour ago
NO! Exactly the opposite, that is the problem. Key-only is a prerequisite for this.
cecilkorik@piefed.ca 29 minutes ago
I think there is some confusion and potential for misinformation here. SSH in key-only mode (common configuration) protects you from this problem, because it never accepts or even attempts any passwords at all, regardless of length. SSH in password-allowed mode with at least one user who might be a key-only USER by merit of having a password hash of “*” (not a valid password hash) is a prerequisite for this. That is a very different and very common thing, as most systems come with at least one key-only user by default. But gaining access to that user with an incorrect, invalid password still requires having passwords enabled at all.
To be clear: Password access enabled is a prerequisite, and by extension, password access disabled (key-only) prevents this.
The website you linked clearly defines that all of these conditions must be true for you to be vulnerable, and as far as I can tell, it is exactly correct:
is your sshd running on musl? (alpine, openwrt, buildroot, yocto)
is it not using pam? alpine’s openssh-server doesn’t by default, or maybe you set UsePAM no
are password logins still on? they are by default
is there an account with just * as its password? key-only users, ldap users, root on alpine
and some other account with a real password?then that * account takes any password between 257 and 1024 characters
The * account which they suggest potentially being “key only” is the prerequisite you are talking about, but having SSH itself key-only (which is best practice anyway) prevents the attack entirely.
DrakiaXYZ@lemmy.ca 25 minutes ago
The linked article literally says you need password login enabled at the ssh level. The account however needs to not have a password set
one_old_coder@piefed.social@piefed.social 1 hour ago
Are your containers running Alpine?
Most containers (99%) I have ever used were using Alpine because it’s small and fun. lol.
Orygin@sh.itjust.works 25 minutes ago
And 99.9% won’t have either ssh at all, or the port open, or password auth enabled.
This is a nothing burger
goatinspace@feddit.org 1 hour ago
patruelis@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Why
InnerScientist@lemmy.world 11 minutes ago
The only container i have that has a reachable SSH port is forgejo, and even then it’s only local traffic and i’d have to check if it even uses alpine. All others also don’t have SSH enabled.
The vulnerability doesn’t seem too bad tbh.