I am having trouble here with the iptables rules i.e. To get started, we need to adjust the configuration file that fail2ban uses to determine what application logs to monitor and what actions to take when offending entries are found. inside the jail definition file matches the path you mounted the logs inside the f2b container. If you set up email notifications, you should see messages regarding the ban in the email account you provided. Hi @posta246 , Yes my fail2ban is not installed directly on the container, I used it inside a docker-container and forwarded ip ban rules to docker chains. @jellingwood Theres a number of actions that Fail2Ban can trigger, but most of them are localized to the local machine (plus maybe some reporting). I confirmed the fail2ban in docker is working by repeatedly logging in with bad ssh password and that got banned correctly and I was unable to ssh from that host for configured period. The unban action greps the deny.conf file for the IP address and removes it from the file. Its uh how do I put this, its one of those tools that you will never remember how to use, and there will be a second screen available with either the man page, or some kind souls blog post explaining how to use it. My understanding is that this result means my firewall is not configured correctly, but I wanted to confirm from someone who actually knows what they are doing. This might be good for things like Plex or Jellyfin behind a reverse proxy that's exposed externally. Evaluate your needs and threats and watch out for alternatives. Setting up fail2ban is also a bit more advanced then firing up the nginx-proxy-manager container and using a UI to easily configure subdomains. The inspiration for and some of the implementation details of these additional jails came from here and here. However, by default, its not without its drawbacks: Fail2Ban uses iptables to manage its bans, inserting a --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable rule for each banned host. This has a pretty simple sequence of events: So naturally, when host 192.0.2.7 says Hey heres a connection from 203.0.11.45, the application knows that 203.0.11.45 is the client, and what it should log, but iptables isnt seeing a connection from 203.0.11.45, its seeing a connection from 192.0.2.7 thats passing it on. WebFail2Ban is a wonderful tool for managing failed authentication or usage attempts for anything public facing. Maybe someone in here has a solution for this. I am after this (as per my /etc/fail2ban/jail.local): Should be usually the case automatically, if you are not using Cloudflare or your service is using custom headers. Your blog post seems exactly what I'm looking for, but I'm not sure what to do about this little piece: If you are using Cloudflare proxy, ensure that your setup only accepts requests coming from the Cloudflare CDN network by whitelisting Cloudflare's IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on your server for TCP/80 (HTTP) and TCP/443 (HTTPS). The only issue is that docker sort of bypasses all iptables entries, fail2ban makes the entry but those are ignored by docker, resulting in having the correct rule in iptables or ufw, but not actually blocking the IP. If you wish to apply this to all sections, add it to your default code block. Well, i did that for the last 2 days but i cant seem to find a working answer. if you have all local networks excluded and use a VPN for access. Having f2b inside the npm container and pre-configured, similiar to the linuxio container, gives end users without experience in building jails and filters an extra layer of security. We do not host any of the videos or images on our servers. To do so, you will have to first set up an MTA on your server so that it can send out email. It works for me also. I've got a question about using a bruteforce protection service behind an nginx proxy. Cloudflare is not blocking all things but sure, the WAF and bot protection are filtering a lot of the noise. actionunban = -D f2b- -s -j This one mixes too many things together. 4/5* with rice. My email notifications are sending From: root@localhost with name root. I used to have all these on the same vm and it worked then, later I moved n-p-m to vm where my mail server is, and the vm with nextcloud and ha and other stuff is being tunelled via mullvad and everything still seems to work. Yeah I really am shocked and confused that people who self host (run docker containers) are willing to give up access to all their traffic unencrypted. Is that the only thing you needed that the docker version couldn't do? Hello, thanks for this article! There are a few ways to do this. As for access-log, it is not advisable (due to possibly large parasite traffic) - better you'd configure nginx to log unauthorized attempts to another log-file and monitor it in the jail. @vrelk Upstream SSL hosts support is done, in the next version I'll release today. We need to enable some rules that will configure it to check our Nginx logs for patterns that indicate malicious activity. if you name your file instead of npm-docker.local to haha-hehe-hihi.local, you need to put filter=haha-hehe-hihi instead of filter=npm-docker etc. Big thing if you implement f2b, make sure it will pay attention to the forwarded-for IP. ! @mastan30 I'm using cloudflare for all my exposed services and block IP in cloudflare using the API. Is fail2ban a better option than crowdsec? I would rank fail2ban as a primary concern and 2fa as a nice to have. As well as "Failed to execute ban jail 'npm-docker' action 'cloudflare-apiv4' [] : 'Script error'". Having f2b inside the npm container and pre-configured, similiar to the linuxio container, gives end users without experience in building jails and filters an extra layer of security. Next, we can copy the apache-badbots.conf file to use with Nginx. https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/sesz1b/should_i_replace_fail2ban_with_crowdsec/huljj6o?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3. hopping in to say that a 2fa solution (such the the one authelia brings) would be an amazing addition. Depending on how proxy is configured, Internet traffic may appear to the web server as originating from the proxys IP address, instead of the visitors IP address. What does a search warrant actually look like? @lordraiden Thanks for the heads up, makes sense why so many issues being logged in the last 2 weeks! Lol. I am using the current LTS Ubuntu distribution 16.04 running in the cloud on a DigitalOcean Droplet. Your browser does not support the HTML5