First VPS — Is 54 SSH bans in 12 hours normal?
from tanka@lemmy.ml to selfhosted@lemmy.world on 07 May 04:35
https://lemmy.ml/post/46987997
from tanka@lemmy.ml to selfhosted@lemmy.world on 07 May 04:35
https://lemmy.ml/post/46987997
So it’s my first time setting up a VPS. Is it to be expected to ban 54 IPs over a 12h timespan? The real question for me is whether this is normal or too much.
$ sudo fail2ban-client status sshd Status for the jail: sshd |- Filter | |- Currently failed: 3 | |- Total failed: 586 | `- Journal matches: _SYSTEMD_UNIT=ssh.service + _COMM=sshd `- Actions |- Currently banned: 51 |- Total banned: 54 `- Banned IP list: [list of IPs]
fail2ban sshd.conf
$ sudo cat /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/sshd.conf [sshd] enabled = true mode = aggressive port = ssh backend = systemd maxretry = 3 findtime = 600 bantime = 86400
I have disabled SSH login via password. And only allow it over an SSH key.
$ sudo sshd -T | grep -E -i 'ChallengeResponseAuthentication|PasswordAuthentication|UsePAM|PermitRootLogin' usepam no permitrootlogin no passwordauthentication no
threaded - newest
Normal background noise. ssh is a well known protocol/port and scanning is automated.
Yeah, I thought so much. But I sort of wanted to be sure. ^^
Pretty much on the low side, but you’ve not been up long. Using key based login you’re fine.
If you have a public IPv4 address and use port 22, you’ll see lots of login attempts. I wouldn’t worry about it, given that you’ve disabled password login.
The only thing I would advise is to disable root login as well (if not done already).Edit: Just saw you’ve already disabled root login.If you’d like to reduce the noise somewhat, consider changing to a randomly chosen high port. I’ve done this with my VPS and hardly get any login attempts.
Yes, I disabled root login, but the port change is a good idea. Thanks.
port knocking is still there btw
I love the concept of port knocking, but it seems like a lot of overhead if the client apps themselves don’t support it.
Now if the SSH client could take a parameter called knock_on_this port, that would be awesome.
Good luck getting e.g. Ansible to work with that. At that point I’d just switch to a hosting provider with an actual firewall.
Setup your ssh config to use a proxy command which uses netcat to knock on the ports. Ansible will work with that.
Setting the SSH service to a random high port doesn’t make security better and may make security worse. Linux has a restriction that low numbered ports require special permissions but high numbered ports do not. If an attacker manages to get low privilege code execution on your machine, they may manage to bind their service to the SSH port instead. If the server and client are configured correctly, this will cause a host key mismatch error. Continuing anyway could allow the attacker to take over your account on the server. It’s unlikely unless you are a high value target.
I never claimed it would make security better. I said it would reduce noise, and it does.
Seems likely. Cheap VPSs are often used by beginners, so they’re prime targets for hackers. Known VPS IP-ranges probably get hammered constantly by hackers, who are hoping you set up a service temporarily without enabling any security, or perhaps with a weak temporary password of 1234 or something.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
5 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 7 acronyms.
[Thread #278 for this comm, first seen 7th May 2026, 12:00] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
Totally normal
I got 135 blocks via sshguard over the first 12 hours today. So, yeah, welcome to the Internet! 😄
Just 54? Those are rookie numbers bro. You need to open up a few more ports. LOL Honestly tho, seems pretty standard. You could change the SSH port which might lower some of the noise but bots now days are pretty sophisticated and it would be trivial to just scan your server and find out which port is SSH. If you want to stop tailing fail2ban nervously on the daily, you could use the hosts.allow/hosts.deny which would lock it down even further. Just remember to set host.allow first then host.deny. You could also deploy any number of secondary security packages like CrowdSec, Wazuh, et al.
.
That’s not a lot even. I’ve seen much worse. Also with password disabled. Some idiot bots still try to send it whole password lists.
Just move your SSH to another port, that is enough to get rid of most of the nuisance scans. Or allow SSH only on IPv6. That usually covers it (The IPv6 address space is too big to scan, unless you have a TLD directly pointing to your IPv6)
What I personally do is run an overlay VPN like tailscale and allow SSH in only via that.
Same. I use Tailscale as an overlay on the pFsense box and the server itself.
Yes, it is normal.
My SSH is only accessible thru a self hosted WireGuard VPN with a dedicated IP. Zero fails.
How do you deal with the risk of loosing the VPN (and thus the access)?
The VPN SSH rule is configured at provision level firewall which I can access through HTTPS and temporarily change the whitelisted IP addresses. Never have done this, though. WireGuard is very stable and it is also behind another firewall.
In that case you should be able to login via webconsole
Yeah. Sounds about right.
First of all disable root login over ssh. Second, move your ssh from port 22 to another port of your liking. Third, disable password authentication altogether and use only solid certificates.
Root login and password authentication are already disabled, and it’s very uncommon for self hosters to use SSH certificates at all.
Changing the SSH port away from 22 does not improve security unless your password is “password” or “admin”. Anybody who’s even slightly sophisticated will find your SSH service on the correct port and make requests there instead.
Yes, I meant ssh private/public keys, not certificates …
And changing the port reduces the amount of attempts in any case.
I don’t think changing the port has the intention of better security here, just reduces the amount of requests that dumb bots make. It’s noticable if you try it.
Switching SSH to a non-standard port can cut down on log noise but it doesn’t really help with security. It’s trivial to identify ssh running on any port and attackers typically do full port scans anyway.
I’d put that effort towards allowlisting only trusted public ips or setting up wireguard/tailscale for ssh access instead.
I would use keys instead of certs
I deactivated the SSH daemon on my VPS and only use Tailscale SSH
I have only one word to say : w00tw00t 😉
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/788c03cf-c69b-458f-86dc-ebac812ff2f3.webp">
They’re portscanning bots.
I made SSH IPv6-only and it stopped. You can’t scan IPv6 space for open ports.
They can’t or they don’t?
My question too, pretty sure you can
The smallest possible subnet has 18.4 quintillion addresses.
You can’t scan it before encountering the heat death of the universe.
Outgoing connections are made on a different address that does not accept incoming connections. You never disclose your real IP when browsing.
So, no. It can’t be done.
That’s only if you use the brute force method
IPs are not secret and can be leaked in various ways. Don’t count on IPv6 as a security mechanism as that’s not what it was designed to do
It’s literally called “IPv6 privacy extension”. It’s what it does.
Unless you’re in the middle and fowarding the packets, you won’t stumble across a connectable IPv6 endpoint.
The IPv6 privacy extensions are something else entirely and are not used for anything server side
You should research IPv6 port scanning techniques. It is harder than IPv4 but still doable depending on the context. If your goal is simply to reduce network traffic due to bots that’s one thing. However, it should not be considered a security mechanism.
You technically can scan IPv6
It is just less common
Rookie numbers.
My favourite f2b rule is the one strike ban on SSH root login attempts. Any IP originating a SSH root login attempt is clearly compromised, and gets black holed on all my hosts for a month.
Note: direct SSH login isn’t permitted at all, the daemon is exposed purely to log the attempts.
I do it for a whole year. lol
The actual span is a random period between 2 and 4 weeks, it’s interesting to watch how long it takes for attempts to resume.
I prefer a more granular visibility, repeat offenders automagically ratchet up their stay in the sin bin.
Now that is a glorious read first thing in the morning haha
Only 54?
That’s very little actually
Move your SSH port from the standard 22 to one of the higher ones, like 53822
It’ll remove 99.something% of your attacks as nobody bothers with those ports.
Wouldn’t use a high port since they’re unprivileged.
so everyone can open them… so what? attacker who already gained local access can crash your original sshd and spin up his own one? admittedly a thinkable scenario… but can this even be abused in a pubkey auth scenario?
I don’t see a reason to worry about that. Only matters if the machine is alreay compromised, and then it doesn’t matter either.
There are different levels of compromise: you could have local access or root access. This might allow a hacker to gain root access by faking an SSHd and asking for a password or something like that. Host key verification would save you in that case, but then again, there’s probably funny MITM things you can do with an existing SSHd.
I have to admit it widens the attack surface. Not immensely, but every bit counts.
Yeah, exactly my sentiment :)
Mostly true, however the thing saving you would be host key verification, not pubkey authentication.
I’m just not into security by obscurity coupled with compromising the inbuilt mechanisms for making sure only root can open an SSHd.
Do you think high ports are irrelevant or only in this case for SSHd? If the former, why do you think the distinction exists in the first place?
host key veryfication, right, good point! non-root attacker won’t have your servers key. but thats just on top. so even if you ack the new host key, what could they gain? give you a shell with their permission and wait for you to sudo-tell them their password maybe. until then trying to mimic the system they might not know too much about (whats in /root?)
Yep, that’s one way. I bet creative hackers can chain some nice exploits together and figure out things we currently don’t think of. Better give them the smallest surface possible :)
I do this too; I changed the actual port to something random and run endlessh-go on 22 to tarpit the skiddies
I personally wouldn’t waste your time with bans
Enable public key authentication and disable passwords
imagine the modern internet like a school yard of a very large school during recess, and it has just snowed.
Now imagine having ssh on port 22 as you a wearing a bright red wooly cap and standing in the middle of the yard jumping up and down and waving hands.