Usually you get what you pay for.
Sounds like you just made some bad choices. Big companies are only marginally less likely to disapear services than small companies are to disappear.
You've described my experience exactly.
A true hacker way in 2020 would be using IPFS or Dat... =)
Also, the cheapest VPS you can find likely won't ever achieve the level of scale your static website in S3 could achieve. In the rare event you get a lot of web traffic, you're only hosed if AWS is hosed.
Also, i rather have my server go down than to receive a larger bill from aws, but that all depends on your use case obviously
The best part of S3 + Route53 is your costs are basically constant. $.50 a month for the hosted zone and then you pay pennies on the dollar for GBs of data transfer. In theory your bill could balloon if you had a hefty static website or some big files left public in your buckets and someone constantly downloaded it.
I ask because actual servers seem like dark magic to me so I want to try to build a product with them, but I can't find anywhere if it's possible to run a reasonably secure server without years of studying.
If you're running something dynamic like WordPress, stay extremely on top of patches, unfortunately, and be super cautious about what plugins you use. (This is one of the better reasons to use a static website.)
If you want to run a Postgres for your dynamic website, configure it to listen only to localhost or only via UNIX sockets.
Make sure you keep your software up-to-date. unattended-upgrades is a great idea for OS-provided software.
Be careful about where you get software from. More than just "get it from somewhere trustworthy," the big concern here is to get it from someone who is applying software updates. For most OS-ish things, you want to get them from your distro; try to avoid downloading e.g. PHP from some random website, because you won't get automatic updates. For a few things - especially things like WordPress - I wouldn't trust the distro to keep up, largely because the common practice is to release security fixes by releasing new versions, and distros are going to want to backport the fixes, which is slower and not always guaranteed to work.
As another commenter mentioned, turn off remote password logins and set up SSH keys. (Most VPS providers will have some form of console / emergency access if you lose access to your SSH keys.)
heaps of templates (because I'm often lazy), 1 stop shop for patches, locked down plugins (child sites can't install plugins, only enable/disable), and only one place to look for problems (& you can lock the wordpress site to a single IP if you always want to use it from a single place).
FWIW, I never groked AWS & it's ping times in my country are about 1/2 as good as local providers. (15-30ms for local, vs 50-100ms for AWS local). Speed matters.
Also, my use case is to 'fall over' (meaning: fail/stop working/be unresponsive) wrt DDOS, whereas I know many here are 'must not fail' (with varying levels of acceptability). So, I write concise, low bandwith consuming websites that appear instantly (to my local market users).
Write everything down! Every command you type. You don’t want to come back in sixth months time and have to relearn what you did the first time.
If you’re feeling ambitious you can script almost the entire deployment from provisioning a machine through to rsyncing the content. It’s pretty fun to run a bash script or two and see an entire server pop up.
Have maintained enough servers for a lifetime, I’d rather be coding!
I have Linux on my laptop and I've been trying to document what I configure with heavily commented bash code, but I've run into issues with editing config files. I frequently want to say something like "edit this variable to this value" but sed feels too fragile and easy to mess up silently, relacing the entire file is silently badly future incompatible if other entries in the config get changed in an update, and appending to the file so the last item overrides feels hacky and doesn't always work.
How does everyone else do that?
Repeat above steps once vps provider goes out of business (as someone else also pointed out)
I'd advice against changing the ssh port - I don't think the (small) inconvenience is worth the (tiny) benefit to obscurity.
I would always recommend turning off password authentication for ssh, though.
(along with disabling direct root login via ssh, but root-with-key-only is now the default - and if you already enforce key based login, it's a bit hard to come up with a real-world scenario where requiring su/sudo is much help for such a simple setup).
I would probably amend your list to include unattended-upgrades (regular, automated security-related updates - but I guess that's starting to be standard, now?).
You will probably need an ssl cert, possibly from let's-encrypt.
At that point, with only sshd and nginx listening to the network - avenues of compromise would be kernel exploit (rare), sshd exploit (rare) or ngnix exploit (rare) - compromise via apt or let's-encrypt (should also be unlikely).
Now, if the site is dynamic, there's likely to be a few bugs in the application, and some kind of compromise seems more likely.
To be honest I don't think the people controlling those bots want to deal with us that makes it harder for them to gain access. Instead why not happily hammer away everyone's else port 22 with the bare minimum configuration? Those who enhance the security were never the targeted audience to begin with.
This is pretty insightful. Statistically, attackers are probably mostly looking for badly configured machines which are easy to exploit rather than hardened systems that take a long time to penetrate.
State actors and obsessed attackers are different, of course. But statistically even taking care of using the simplest precautions keeps one out of the reach of the broad majority of such attacks.
Do VPS providers offer some sort of similar firewall service outside your instance?
If you don't know that you'll be able to arrive from an IP or subnet - another option would be port knocking. (eg: knockd). Although, I'd try to avoid adding more code and logic to the mix - that goes for both fail2ban and knockd.
[1] ed: Note, the rationale for this is sound: the firewall (pf or nftables) is very good at filtering on IP - so better avoid introducing another layer of software that does the same thing.
My thinking is that even if I for example fail to sanitize inputs to a database or displayed to other users that won't lead to an exploit absent a bug in the off the shelf login module or someone attacking their colleagues (in which case there are other weaker links).
The organization I'm building this for has other moderately sensitive systems on an internal network, but the server I'll be managing will on the public internet. The site I'm building will export CSV files to be opened with Excel, so I suppose if the site I build was compromised it could be used to get an exploit onto a computer in the network. Still I presume if they're facing that kind of attack they'll have plenty of other weak links like documents spearphished to people and I'm pretty sure the sensitive systems are on a separate internal network.
Is my confidence crazy?
But I also think that I would trust eg apache/nginx basic auth, more than login/session handling at the application level (php/ruby/... with users in a db).
Assume at least one user has a dictionary password, and suddenly you'll want to enforce 2fa via otp or similar - for peace of mind.
As a general rule, I tend to assume a targeted attack will succeed (no reason to make that too easy, though) - what I aim to avoid are the bots.
They'll likely be brute forcing passwords, blindly trying sql injection - along with a few off the shelf exploits for various popular applications (eg: php forum software).
Hard disagree, even if for as simple a reason as port 22 gets inundated by drive by hacking attempts, making the log files virtually useless.
Running telnet with no password on any port would be, but having ssh on a non-default port isn't trying to achieve security through obscurity.
I think this is key. If you have resources that are already serving things, the marginal cost of serving something else is low.
For a typical person not running servers for personal services, the upfront cost does not seem justified, when its so easy (and cheap) to setup and use the alternatives.
aws S3 cp $your-local-directory S3://your-bucket“Host a static website the HN way”
It would be overkill for a static website.
[...]
> Yearly maintenance required:
Well, presumably, find the new cheapest, most unsustainable VPS ipv4 deal, the previous one not having been sustained.
Gatekeeping alert!
Fortunately, there is more than one way to do things. I've been in HN for a while now and I don't do any of this. I was doing it when I wanted to learn, but now I need to get a project launched without any burden so I deploy it to ZEIT Now which is not the same as OP, but you get the idea.
1. Buy the cheapest most unsustainable VPS ipv4 deal out there.
2. Make A record and WWW record and point domain to your new fangled server.
3. Configure server:
apt-get install nginx goaccess
cd website
cp * /var/www/html
Yearly maintenance required: apt-get update, apt-get upgrade
reboot
View traffic stats: goaccess -f /var/log/nginx/access.log