| 1 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:47 PM, lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Same here, so why does fail2ban get involved with containers? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Seems like there are three options here. |
| 9 |
> 1. Run fail2ban on the host and have it look into the containers, |
| 10 |
> monitor their logs, and add host iptables rules to block connections. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's what I'm trying. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> 2. Run fail2ban in each container and have it monitor its own logs, |
| 15 |
> and then add host iptables rules to block connections. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Containers must not be able to change the firewalling rules of the host. |
| 18 |
If they can do such things, what's the point of having containers? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 3. Run fail2ban in each container and have each container in its own |
| 21 |
> network namespace. Fail2ban can then add container iptables rules to |
| 22 |
> block connections. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That would waste resources. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I actually gave up on fail2ban after a bunch of issues. The only |
| 27 |
> place I get brute force attacks right now is ssh, and I'm using the |
| 28 |
> Google authenticator plugin. I just ignore the thousands of failed |
| 29 |
> ssh authentication attempts... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Hm, it's not working at all? It doesn't seem to do anything here ... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons |
| 36 |
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. |
Archives