zlacker

>>jakels+(OP)
> I also enabled UFW (which I should have done ages ago)

I disrecommend UFW.

firewalld is a much better pick in current year and will not grow unmaintainable the way UFW rules can.

    firewall-cmd --persistent --set-default-zone=block
    firewall-cmd --persistent --zone=block --add-service=ssh
    firewall-cmd --persistent --zone=block --add-service=https
    firewall-cmd --persistent --zone=block --add-port=80/tcp
    firewall-cmd --reload

Configuration is backed by xml files in /etc/firewalld and /usr/lib/firewalld instead of the brittle pile of sticks that is the ufw rules files. Use the nftables backend unless you have your own reasons for needing legacy iptables.

Specifically for docker it is a very common gotcha that the container runtime can and will bypass firewall rules and open ports anyway. Depending on your configuration, those firewall rules in OP may not actually do anything to prevent docker from opening incoming ports.

Newer versions of firewalld gives an easy way to configure this via StrictForwardPorts=yes in /etc/firewalld/firewalld.conf.

>>3np+pm
If you can, do not expose ports like this 8080:8080, but do this "192.168.0.1:8080:8080" so its bound to a private IP. Then use any old method expose only what you want to the world.

In my own use I have 10.0.10.11 on the vm that I host docker stuff. It doesn't even have its own public IP meaning I could actually expose to 0.0.0.0 if I wanted to but things might change in the future so it's a precaution. That IP is only accessible via wireguard and by the other machines that share the same subnet so reverse proxying with caddy on a public IP is super easy.

>>dizhn+u41
Yup the regular "8080:8080" bind resulted in a ransom note in my database on day 1. Bound it to localhost only now.

>>zwnow+g91
one thing I always forget about, is that you have a whole network of 127.0.0.0/8 , not just one IP.

So you can create multiple addresses with multiple separate "domains" mapped statically in /etc/hosts, and allow multiple apps to listen on "the same" port without conflicts.

>>szszrk+1j1
I never thought of using localhost like that, I'm surprised that works actually. Typically, if you want a private /8 you would use 10.0.0.0/8 but the standard 192.168.0.0/16 gives you a lot of address space ( 255^2 - 2 IPs (iirc) ) too.

..actually this is very weird. Are you saying you can bind to 127.0.0.2:80 without adding a virtual IP to the NIC? So the concept of "localhost" is really an entire class A network? That sounds like a network stack bug to me heh.

edit: yeah my route table on osx confirms it. very strange (at least to me)

>>chasd0+yH2
I didn't really know the mechanism of how this worked but if you check your resolv file you might find that the nameserver IP for your localhost is 127.0.0.53 . It is so in recent Linux distros. (Probably a systemd thing)