Selfhosted

53034 readers

808 users here now

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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
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.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

public Apache VirtualHost pointing to e.g. NextCloud/Immich VMs inside LAN (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 17 hours ago by BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How realistic is this architecture? It's been a while since I've set something like this up for work.

The thought behind this layout is that having only one machine hanging out there with just Apache and ssh (from lan only, non-standard port), and forwarding via Mod_Proxy any services I might want to share with non-LAN friends/family (photos, docs), is a smaller exposure than hosting all my VMs in a DMZ and hoping that the one server doesn't get nuked.

Something like: DNS -> public-zone{ www-serv } <-> firewall-1 <-> lan{ vm-host <-> firewall-2 <-> (printers, laptops, etc) }

firewall-1 is actually a router running Tomato, with custom iptables rules. That way if www-serv is compromised the attacker can't just drop some rules.

firewall-2 is just iptables rules on vm-host

all LAN computers' iptables are a little more permissive, with holes for SAMBA, CUPS, and ssh on non-standard port.

What do you think? Is this sufficient? What would you do differently?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 4 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

Yup, it worked for me, no incidents. Add mod_security if you're worried, and of course keep Apache up to date.

I now moved Apache to a separate VLAN on the private side, and have strict firewall rules on traffic from that VLAN only to services it's supposed to be proxying.

[–] BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

thanks! It's hard not to feel out of my depth, it's been so long. And, it being my own info, not a corp's protected by insurance, indemnity, mandatory arbitration, and (as a last resort) backups, the stakes feel a little higher.

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I felt a little uneasy putting my data on something which could be broken into. Still do, having seen my share of hacked websites at work.

If it helps you, I host everything in subdirectories with non obvious names, so bots only hit 404 pages.

Nextcloud.bonk.xyz -> nope Bonk.xyz/nextcloud -> nope Bonk.xyz/bonkcirrostratus -> good luck guessing that

[–] BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 15 hours ago

That's a really good strategy , thanks!

load more comments (2 replies)