another pufferfish drawn by rekka yet another pufferfish drawn by rekka yet another pufferfish drawn by rekka
fail2ban sucks

-> fail2ban sucks

i've made this argument countless times on the internet,
so i figure i'd write it down so that i can just link to
it instead.

this tends to be a controversial opinion, i think.

critical note:
i am not saying that fail2ban sucks for every use-case, i
am mostly writing this in such a way to try and
counteract the fervant fail2ban recommendations that i
see everywhere, which i think are dangerous. if you like
fail2ban, fine, use it - but these are my thoughts.

for those unfamiliar with fail2ban, generally speaking,
it is a piece of software that monitors log files for
login failures, and then interacts with your firewall to
block the IP addresses belonging to those failures. It is
configurable such that one can say "if an IP fails to
login via SSH 10 times in a row, block it for 1 hour."

i see fail2ban commonly recommended on the internet.
typically when someone new to server administration sets
up a server and asks about all of these weird SSH
attempts, that's when fail2ban comes up.

here are some quotes from fail2ban fans:

> One handy service is fail2ban, which will automatically
> IP addresses to the firewall if enough failed attempts
> are tried

> To ban those, you could try to use fail2ban. Seems to be a common approach to
> this kind of bot activity.

> In this case, a good password with iptables rate limiting, fail2ban & log
> monitoring is better.

> Non-standard port and/or fail2ban for logspam if you're having fun.

> I find the best/laziest combo is ufw/ssh/fail2ban/f2b-loop/logwatch.

i have a few arguments, this is the summary:

do not change your standard ports. do not use fail2ban.

do harden your applications with their built-in mechanisms.

if you need super extra security for certain apps,
only allow trusted IP ranges - use an IP whitelist.

most everyone else is overengineering.

fail2ban sucks, let me count the ways.


* will not stop an advanced persistent threat
* will inconvinience you at some point
* may inconvinience *your users* at some point
* opens you up to fail2ban vulnerabilities
* may make you feel like your system is more secure than it is
* is no more secure than a properly configured
* is actually _less_ secure than a properly configured

at best, fail2ban: does nothing
at worst, fail2ban: causes you massive inconvinience or total lockout

let's put ourselves in the mindset of a new system
administrator. they spun up a new capsul[1], they're peeking
around their new system. suddenly they notice their SSH
logs - hundreds of ip addresses from russia and china
attempting to log into their systems over and over. 

naturally, this triggers what one might call "bad vibes."
it makes the system feel less clean. who decided that
this was okay? i just finished setting this system up
and it's already under attack!?

do not listen to their advice, new admin. simply setup
SSH properly, and don't worry about a thing. here is my
rationale. first, let's think about who exactly those IPs
belong to.

* bots

there are tens of thousands of bots trying common
username/password combination against every service known
on earth - SSH isn't special. This goes for every login
page on the internet that expects a username and a
password. Think email and neocities. Think wordpress
admin pages and databases interfaces left wide open.

if you do not leave your services listening on public
interfaces while they're configured with usernames like
"admin" and passwords like "admin", you have nothing to
worry about.

* curious users

friends looking to prank you, kids with no idea what SSH
even is, maybe that one girl at the bar you pissed off who
has Kali installed on her laptop.

pro tip: these attempts will likely be less successful
than the bots.

* advanced persistent threads

usually state actors, maybe a botnet operator with a
grudge. in either case, fail2ban does nothing - these
users can scream through proxies like they're seeing the
matrix. they can change their IP address nineteen million
times a second without blinking. you can ban a quarter of
the IP addresses on earth with fail2ban - the attacker
will use another quarter.

what i'm saying is, if you're fucked, you're fucked.
fail2ban will not help. but if you're secure, you're
secure, fail2ban will not help. see what i'm getting at?


i'll speak about OpenSSH specifically, but only because
it's brought up so often. here are the hardening
guidelines that you should abide by.

* generate a password protected private/public keypair
* use key-based authentication to your system(s)
* turn off username/password auth

you will still see the failed login messages. ignore
them. unless someone hacks your key _and_ the decryption
password, they **are not getting in via SSH**.

it would take roughly 2,000 years using the dedicated
compute power of every computer on earth put together to
bruteforce that key. don't sweat it. they are not getting

fail2ban is good for freeing up resources though, right?

wrong. fail2ban has to fuck with a live firewall. it'll
probably block you out. every second of your time is
worth more than a hundred hours of your compute operating
properly. setting up fail2ban takes time, and so does
getting yourself unblocked from it.

the resources consumed by 10 SSH login attempts per
minute is staggeringly low.

* if someone is trying to DDOS you, sorry, _you are going
  to get DDOS'd_, fail2ban will not help.

but j3s i have a very valid super-dooper good reason for
changing the default OpenSSH port of 22 to some other

well, okay fine. go ahead. but please take the following
into account:

* changing your SSH port to non-root port (>1024)
  means that if the SSH daemon dies, any userland process
  can take its' place. this is bad.

* changing your SSH port means that you'll have to do a
  bunch of fuckery to get basic functionality working.
  you will very likely waste hours of your life. you will
  have to google "rsync ssh non standard port" every time
  you want to use rsync. you will have to remember scp
  flags. this is also bad. probably worse.

* you will have to tell the port to anyone else who tries
  legitimately accessing your system.

in my mind, the only valid use-case for switching your
default SSH port is that flipping it to listen on port 80
or 443 will get around most workplace firewalls.

well okay fine, OpenSSH is a special case though, right?

any application that is used to being bruteforced will
likely have protections implemented that you can use
against such bruteforcing. for an interesting read,
check out spamd:

> When a sending host talks to spamd, the reply will be
> stuttered. That is, the response will be sent back a
> character at a time, slowly. For blacklisted hosts, the
> entire dialogue is stuttered. For greylisted hosts, the
> default is to stutter for the first 10 seconds of
> dialogue only.


are you okay?

not really

aka, my recommendations:

* understand the security mechanisms built-in to your

* use those mechanisms

* get on with your life


fail2ban CVEs:
SSH hardening: