zlacker

I just run an SSH server and forward local ports through that as needed. Simple (at least to me).

>>SoftTa+(OP)
I do that as well, along with using sshd as a SOCKS proxy for web based stuff via Firefox, but it can be a bit of a pain to forward each service to each host individually if you have more than a few things going on - especially if you have things trying to use the same port and need to keep track of how you mapped it locally. It can also a lot harder to manage on mobile devices, e.g. say you have some media or home automation services - they won't be as easy to access via a single public SSH host via port forwarding (if at all) as a VPN would be, and wireguard is about as easy a personal VPN as there is.

That's where wg/Tailscale come in - it's just a traditional IP network at that point. Also less to do to shut up bad login attempts from spam bots and such. I once forgot to configure the log settings on sshd and ended up with GBs of logs in a week.

The other big upside (outside of not having a 3rd party) in putting in the slightly more effort to do wg/ssh/other personal VPN is the latency+bandwidth to your home services will be better.

>>SoftTa+(OP)
Also to Simon: I am not sure about how Iphone works but in android, you could probably use mosh and termux to then connect to the server as well and have the end result while not relying on third party (in this case tailscale)

I am sure there must be an Iphone app which could probably allow something like this too. I highly recommend more people take a look into such workflow, I might look into it more myself.

Tmate is a wonderful service if you have home networks behind nat's.

I personally like using the hosted instance of tmate (tmate.io) itself but It can be self hosted and is open source

Once again it has third party issue but luckily it can be self hosted so you can even have a mini vps on hetzner/upcloud/ovh and route traffic through that by hosting tmate there so ymmv

>>SoftTa+(OP)
How many random people do you have hitting port 22 on a given day?

>>Rebelg+Ev
Dozens. Maybe hundreds. But they can't get in as they don't have the key.

>>zamada+sc
> and wireguard is about as easy a personal VPN as there is.

I would argue OpenVPN is easier. I currently run both (there are some networks I can’t use UDP on, and I haven’t bothered figuring out how to get wireguard to work with TCP), and the OpenVPN initial configuration was easier, as is adding clients (DHCP, pre-shared cert+username/password).

This isn’t to say wireguard is hard. But imo OpenVPN is still easier - and it works everywhere out of the box. (The exception is networks that only let you talk on 80 and 443, but you can solve that by hosting OpenVPN on 443, in my experience.)

This is all based on my experience with opnsense as the vpn host (+router/firewall/DNS/DHCP). Maybe it would be a different story if I was trying to run the VPN server on a machine behind my router, but I have no reason to do so - I get at least 500Mbps symmetrical through OpenVPN, and that’s just the fastest network I’ve tested a client on. And even if that is the limit, that’s good enough for me, I don’t need faster throughput on my VPN since I’m almost always going to be latency limited.

>>Rebelg+Ev
change port.

>>gsich+MU
Underrated reply - I randomize the default ports everywhere I can, really cuts down on brute force/credential stuffing attempts.

>>gsich+MU
or keep the port and move to IPv6 only.

>>gsich+MU
After years of cargo-culting this advice—"run ssh on a nonstandard port"—I gave up and reverted to 22 because ssh being on nonstandard ports didn't change the volume of access attempts in the slightest. It was thousands per day on port 22, and thousands per day on port anything-else-i-changed-it-to.

It's worth an assessment of what you _think_ running ssh on a nonstandard port protects you against, and what it's actually doing. It won't stop anything other than the lightest and most casual script-based shotgun attacks, and it won't help you if someone is attempting to exploit an actual-for-real vuln in the ssh authentication or login process. And although I'm aware the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data," it sure as hell didn't reduce the volume of login attempts.

Public key-only auth + strict allowlists will do a lot more for your security posture. If you feel like ssh is using enough CPU rejecting bad login attempts to actually make you notice, stick it behind wireguard or set up port-knocking.

And sure, put it on a nonstandard port, if it makes you feel better. But it doesn't really do much, and anyone hitting your host up with censys.io or any other assessment tool will see your nonstandard ssh port instantly.

>>lee_ar+Gn1
Conversely, what do you gain by using a standard port?

Now, I do agree a non-standard port is not a security tool, but it doesn't hurt running a random high-number port.

>>wasmit+pu1
> Conversely, what do you gain by using a standard port?

One less setup step in the runbook, one less thing to remember. But I agree, it doesn't hurt! It just doesn't really help, either.

>>gsich+MU
I've tried using a nonstandard port but I still see a bunch of IPs getting banned, with the added downside of if I'm on the go sometimes I don't remember the port

>>lee_ar+Gn1
it did for me.