Any guides on how to host at home? I’m always afraid that opening ports in my home router means taking the heavy risk of being hacked. Does using something like CloudFlare help? I am a complete beginner.
Edit: Thanks for all the great response! They are very helpful.
There are ways to host things from home without opening ports in your router at all, this usually involves running something that calls/tunnels out of your network and back to some service and accepts incoming connections and sends them “baskward” over that connection. Cloudflare offers something called Tunnel, ngrok does something similar (though mainly aimed at development and not production hosting), and you can even host something yourself using something like frp (which is what I use, even for the Lemmy instance I am writing this from).
I haven’t looked too closely at it, but there is an awesome-tunneling page someone put together that goes over these options and more.
Let me know if you want a bit more details on these options or specifics of how I’ve set up frp.
Not OP and I don’t have any specific questions right now, but if you got any general advice on frp you want to share, I’d be happy to read it :-)
Very basically, I set up a
frpson the public server, and onefrpcper service I want to have publicly accessible - where thefrpc.inidefines all the specifics, so I don’t have to touch the server regularly. Is that correct so far?Edit: After typing it out, I came up with a question - what happens when the
frpcs go offline? Will the server return an error, fallback, or just deny the connection?Yeah, you’re basically on the right track. I do a couple things in a possibly interesting way that you may find useful:
- I run multiple
frpss on different servers. Haven’t gotten around to setting up a LB in front or automatically removing them from DNS, but doing that sort of thing is the eventual plan. This means running as manyfrpcs as I havefrpss. I also haven’t gotten to the point of figuring out what to do if e.g. one service exposed viafrpsis healthy but another is not. It may make sense to run HAProxy in front of it or something… sounds terrible… - I have multiple
frpc.inis, they define all of the connection details for a particularfrpsthen useincludes = /conf.d/*.inito load up whatever services thatfrpcexposes. - I run
frpcin docker and use volumes to manage e.g. putting the rightfrpc.iniand/conf.d/<service>.inifiles in there. - I use QUIC for the communication layer between
frpcandfrpsusing certificates for client authentication. - I run my
frpcs (one container perfrps, I’m considering ways to combine them to make it less annoying to deploy) right alongside the service I am exposing remotely, so I run e.g. one for Traefik, one forgogsgiteaforgejo ssh, etc. If you are using docker-compose I would put one (set of)frpcin that compose file to expose whatever services it has. Similar thought for k8s, I would do sidecar containers as part of your podspec. - If I have more than one instance of a service, such as e.g. running multiple Traefik “ingress” stacks, I run a set of
frpcs per deployment of that service. - Where possible I use proxy protocol via
proxy_protocol_version = v2to easily preserve incoming IP address. Traefik supports this natively, which is the most important service to me as most of what I run connects over HTTP(s). - I choose to terminate end-user SSL using Traefik within my homelab, so the full TLS session gets sent as a plain TCP stream. There is support for HTTPS within frp using
plugin = https2http, but I like my setup better.
As to your question of “what happens when the
frpcs go offline?”, it depends on service type. I only use services oftype = tcpandtype = udp, so can’t speak to anything beyond that with experience.In the case of
type = tcpyourfrpsyou can run multiplefrpcs and thefrpswill load-balance to them, meaning if you run multiple you should get some level of HA because if one connection breaks it should just use the other, killing any still-open connections to the failedfrpc. Same thought there as how e.g.cloudflaredusing their Tunnels feature makes two connections to two of their datacenters. If there is nothing to handle a particular TCP service on anfrpsI think the connection gets refused, it may even stop listening on the port, but I’m not sure of that.Sadly in the case of
type = udpthefrpswill only accept onefrpcconnection. I still run multiplefrpcs, but those particular connections just fail and keep retrying until the “active”frpcfor that udp service dies. I believe this means that if there is nothing to handle a particular UDP service on anfrpsit just drops the packets since there isn’t really a “connection” to kill/refuse/reset, the same thing about stopping listening may apply here as well but I am also unsure in this case.My wishlist for frp is, in no particular order:
frpcmaking multiple connections to a serverfrpcbeing able to connect to multiple servers- Some sort of native ALPN handling in
frps, and ability to use a custom ALPN protocol for frp traffic (so I can run client traffic and frp traffic on the same port) frpssupport for loadbalancing to multiple UDP via some sort of session tracking, triple-based routing, or something elsefrpssupport for clustering or something, so even if onefrpsdidn’t have a way to route a service it could talk to anotherfrpsnearby that did- or even support for tiering the idea of “locality”, first it tries on the local machine, then it tries in the same zone/region/etc
- It’d be super neat if there were a way to do something like Cloudflare’s “Keyless SSL”
Overall I am pretty happy with frp, but it seems like it is trying to solve too much (e.g “secret” services, p2p, HTTP, TCP multiplexing). I would love to see something more focused purely TCP/UDP (and maybe TLS/QUIC) edge-ingress emerge and solve a narrower problem space even better. Maybe there is some sort of complex network-level solution with a VPN and routing daemons (BGP?) and firewall/NAT stuff that could do this better, but I really just want a tiny executable and/or container I can run on both ends and have things “just work”.
<pipedream> I want the technology to build something similar to Cloudflare incredibly simply, and for more providers to be able to offer something similar. Maybe there is something that could be built to solve this if they open source Oxy. </pipedream>
Wow, what a rich response. I’ll be able to learn from that for days! Thank you very much!
Especially love the hints about integrating with docker. I often struggle understanding why people like to use it, but this bit about integrating frp here really gave me a little new perspective.
- I run multiple
Cloudflare yes. Even if you aren’t using tunnels it will help obfuscate your real ip. If you are hosting personal services you can also block access from countries you don’t expect to access them from.
Also it seems most bots scanning domains are checking www and the base domain url. I recommend pointing those at a vps or something like GitHub or substack if you don’t need it for something else.
Use a reverse proxy that 404s anything besides the subdomains you are actually using. Always use wildcard certs to avoid exposing subdomains and obfuscate your subdomains for common services to make them hard to guess.
Isolate your servers from the rest of your network with vlans if possible.
You will never be fully immune so all you can do is add more layers and roadblocks.
The most secure one would be not opening anything out, and using Tailscale to VPN into your home network.
If you want to open stuff, Cloudflare + letsEncrypt + good router/firewall will be a start.
Tailscale, super easy install, sets up a VPN into your services, no port opening needed
One way to think of being secure is “how can this be abused”
Its a good way to think of how you can secure stuff
Assuming you use Docker or some kind of container runtime I found a list of best practices: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Docker_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html
From what I understand, opening a port isn’t a risk in and of itself — it’s only a risk if the software using the port is insecure! So long as you use reliable software and take care to configure things properly (following through with instructions from a site like ArchWiki or the official documentation helps), you’re good.
CloudFlare is more for DDOS protection, which you almost certainly don’t need . You could always set up DDOS protection later on, if the need ever arises.
Every single software is insecure. Generally servers should have their own networks sperated from your private network like an DMZ.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted… This is a reasonable take. Any piece of software exposed to the public internet is a potential attack vector. It can only increase your attack surface, and ideally you should try to trust pieces of software as little as possible and try to limit the impact it can have if it’s compromised. It’s worth considering. That doesn’t necessarily mean that everything is super high risk, but exploits can be found in pretty much anything at any given time, so it’s worth thinking about how to isolate things and worth thinking about what you’re exposing.
Yeah, unless you’re worried about people targeting your IP specifically, using a reverse proxy service seems like more complexity without more security. Not opening ports, and especially not opening well known ports, is just superstition. It just changes where somebody connects to the service without limiting access to or securing the service.
Using Cloudflare Tunnel is a pretty common option for several reasons:
- it’s in the free tier so the tunnels cost nothing to run
- from the network perspective, exposing a service using a CF tunnel doesn’t require an open port on your router
- CF also offers authentication for web apps which can be a nice addition to some types of services, especially the ones that lack their own auth
I personally use it to expose FreshRSS, Transmission, and some other stuff, it works really well.
Hi, could you explain the concept behind how Cloudflare tunnels work? I assume it’s not like a VPN? Is it similar to Zero-tier/Tailscale?
This is very much a choose your own adventure that depends on a number of factors such as the services you’re hosting, ease of access for other household members, your hosting setup, additional privacy concerns, ect.
Here a couple of resources for different methods:
Techno Tim’s overview, reverse proxy through cloudflare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs8yOmTJNYQ
Cloudflare proxy straight to the hosted service https://www.cloudflare.com/products/tunnel/
Create a peer to peer vpn sidestepping opening ports: https://tailscale.com/blog/how-tailscale-works/
I think the safest option is to not host from your home network. If you aren’t up to date on security patches, you could potentially expose a lot of data from an insecure server running inside your network.
There are precautions you can take, like isolating any external facing servers from the rest of your network, for example, but I generally recommend using a hosted service instead.
First you’ve got to determine where threats can come from, then which surfaces are vulnerable and eventually the reach. In short what I mean:
SSH port (default 22) is high on the threat encounter level. Lots of bots try to scan every host they can find for an open SSH port. The risk is high because this is a doorway to your network. There’s honestly no good reason to have port 22 open to your home. Get tailscale vpn. There are alternatives, I use tailscale, it’s great.
When youre hosting apps, they can also be vulnerable. Keep them updated and you’ll mostly be fine. There are levels of security. Super super secure is creating seperate networks for these apps so they can’t access others. Bit much imo. Use non-rooted docker, enough of a sandbox.
In the end you’re a small fish in a big pond, not saying you should be a cowboy but with a few decent measures you should be OK.
Tl;dr
- don’t open port 22
- use a VPN (tailscale)
- update apps
- non-rooted docker
What’s wrong with exposing port 22? I have password authentication disabled, ssh keys only. Isn’t that secure enough?
I do as well on a non-standard port, although that doesn’t really provide any extra security. I found ssh only login acceptably secure personally, but it’s definitely less secure than tailscale which can operate with 0 open ports. The risk would be from os/sshd vulnerabilities that can be exploited. As long as you keep the router up to date it should be safe enough.
Why would you expose SSH on a home production server?
Hosting several dockerized apps for friends since years. Only 80/443 proxy ports are open. Apps are secured with 2FA and monitored by fail2ban + kept up-to-date. Never had any issue.It’s for the chance that I need to administer my cluster when I am not on my LAN. I can set up a port forward to the externally accessible port and everything works as normal like I’m on my LAN. Non-default port, password auth disabled, ssh with root disabled (so you have to have my user and ssh key) and limited ssh connection attempts before ban. I can toggle it on or off with a check box on my router. Yes, I understand there are other ways that are even more secure, yes I understand the risks, but for my circumstances this was a good balance of convenience and security. I’ve also never had an issue :).
Add VPN and you made the best out of it :)
Why not? Openssh has proven itself to be reasonable secure. Porbably more research went into its security then most apps you are hosting.
I think it’s not so much “insecure” as that it’s that external SSH access is less secure than no access. And for home-managed systems exposed externally, I would recommend a smaller attack area.
As an addition to the options the others have given you, you could achieve a really secure setup with a VPN either on your home router, or on a Raspberry pi / VM / Container / Whatever using e.g. PiVPN. You would have to open a port on your router and forward it to the PiVPN. When logging into the pivpn, your device will behave just like you’re inside your home network (if you want it to). If you use wireguard and secure the machine with fail2ban you should be good. Wireguard uses UDP only, this means malicious packets coming to your VPN will simply be disregarded. This means the attacker won’t see / recognise any open ports at all. I did the same in the past and configured my raspberry pi to check if my IP has changed (global IPv6, b.c. my ISP doesn’t hand out native/routable IPv4 adresses) and then update a DNS entry pointing to my pi.
