cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/10908807

TLDR:

If I use SSH as a Tor hidden service and do not share the public hostname of that service, do I need any more hardening?

Full Post:

I am planning to setup a clearnet service on a server where my normal “in bound” management will be over SSH tunneled through Wireguard. I also want “out of bound” management in case the incoming ports I am using get blocked and I cannot access my Wireguard tunnel. This is selfhosted on a home network.

I was thinking that I could have an SSH bastion host as a virtual machine, which will expose SSH as a a hidden service. I would SSH into this VM over Tor and then proxy SSH into the host OS from there. As I would only be using this rarely as a backup connection, I do not care about speed or convenience of connecting to it, only that it is always available and secure. Also, I would treat the public hostname like any other secret, as only I need access to it.

Other than setting up secure configs for SSH and Tor themselves, is it worth doing other hardening like running Wireguard over Tor? I know that extra layers of security can’t hurt, but I want this backup connection to be as reliable as possible so I want to avoid unneeded complexity.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
39 points

If you don’t have any good reason not to, always set your SSH server to only authenticate with keys.

Anything else is irrelevant.

permalink
report
reply
15 points
*

If you don’t have any good reason not to

Spoiler alert: you don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

This is the internet. If you poke the bear, somebody will come-up with a completely reasonable use case of password authentication that happened once somewhere on the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Easy. I have servers that are only available on my local network and lots of different devices that I MIGHT want to use to access those servers. I haven’t bothered to make sure my key is on EVERY SINGLE DEVICE and some of them, I might not actually even WANT my key on as they’re not terribly well secured and they might leave my house (my Windows gaming laptop I haven’t used in six months comes to mind).

But for cloud accessible servers… yeah.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Playing with a Raspberry Pi inside my own home network with nothing important going on and I turned the Pi off when I’m done. Like why worry about it at that point?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

If there is, I’d love to hear it. But even JuiceSSH on Android has supported keys for like the last decade.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

30 character password + fail2ban after one failed attempt. Why not?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

WCGW?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

30 character

You’ve gotta pump those numbers, those are rookie numbers. (I have a vps that has several times that figure)

permalink
report
parent
reply

Selfhosted

!selfhosted@lemmy.world

Create post

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!

Community stats

  • 3.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 77K

    Comments