this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
6 points (61.5% liked)

Selfhosted

40183 readers
569 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I want to set up ufw on my server, but something wrong here. Even when I trying to block 22 port ssh still working and nothing changing. I have ufw enabled, but nothing works.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pretty much nobody can help you with the information you provided there.

Minimum required is going to be a 'ufw status' output. The whole output, not an edited partial output.

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So you want to block port 22? Yet the rule you added allows access, or am I misunderstanding?

You probably need to be DENY instead of ALLOW if that's what you're wanting to accomplish.

[–] bmcgonag@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This! You have it set to “Allow”, so it’s allowing it. You need to set it to Deny.

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is this a troll post or are you really struggling?

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago
sudo ufw delete allow 22

Is this a public facing server? If it isn't the online port port scanners will not work as they are scanning your public IP. Also they are unreliable in general. Best tool for the job is nmap. It has a ton of config options so you will need to do some reading. (Definitely worth the learn)

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

, no, I want to open, for example this port, but:

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you have something listening on port 52038 that will respond to a port scan? If not it will report as closed.

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It's my port for wireguard and here what I can't understand: when I blocking port for this wireguard service I still can use wireguard even if ufw deny it.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wireguard appears as closed unless it receives the proper packet.

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

that's what I looked for

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is wireguard incoming or outgoing from the machine you're trying to block it on?

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

outgoing, I guess. I mean, it's on my vps which I want to use for vpn

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Make sure you're creating a block rule specifically on outgoing in that case.

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

when I just use ufw allow [port] command it'll not work?

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Outgoing should already allow everything, so no need to specifically allow it.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a website tool checking? It's almost certainly only going to check TCP, since most of them don't do anything with UDP because it's... more complicated.

You may need to find an alternate way to do that, something like iperf or netcat (nc -u ip port)

[–] AceSLS@ani.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

nmap works great for this

traceroute might also be usable vith the -p switch I guess?