Submitted 2 months ago by iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee to selfhosted@lemmy.world
Hi guys!
Back in the day I used to have a VM holding nginx and all the crap exposed…and I did set it up with fail2ban. I moved away from it, as the OS upgrade was turning messy, and rebuilt onto an LXC container. How should I use fail2ban/iptables in order to protect/harden my LXC container/server?
Thanks!
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| HTTP | Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web |
| LXC | Linux Containers |
| nginx | Popular HTTP server |
[Thread #964 for this sub, first seen 10th Sep 2024, 23:45] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Fail2ban and containers can be tricky, because under the hood, you’ll often have container policies automatically inserting themselves above host policies in iptables. The docker documentation has a good write-up on how to solve it for their implementation
docs.docker.com/…/packet-filtering-firewalls/
For your usecase specifically: If you’re using VMs only, you could run it within any VM that is exposing traffic, but for containers you’ll have to run fail2ban on the host itself. I’m not sure how LXC handles this, but I assume it’s probably similar to docker.
The simplest solution would be to just put something between your hypervisor and the Internet physically (a raspberry-pi-based firewall, etc)
486@lemmy.world 2 months ago
No, it is not like Docker. You can treat an LXC container pretty much like a VM in most instances, including firewall rules. To answer the question, you can use fail2ban just like you had done in your VM.
iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Thanks I appreciate your reply… I have a bit of concern about an unprivileged container having firewall limitations (as I might have read in the past this was…finicky), but I’m going to give it a shot.