Real-life security of unRaid in 2021

[Savimaki]

Hey guys, this is my first post here. I have known about unraid for quite a few years now, but recently I started actually learning to use it and work with it. I have seen a lot of chat around security. Some people say its fine to expose the unraid machine to the internet (not the dashboard of course and with other proper security measures) and some say never to do it. I'm really wondering if the people telling not to expose it are just trying to achieve "google-like" security, or if it actually matters in real life. I of course don't think it would be "unhackable", nothing is. I have also noticed the threads are semi-old (2017, etc.). How is the security these days? Could I expose it to the internet for example to use docker apps etc. with lets say a reverse proxy? Should I bury my idea?

 

Also, would you consider an unRaid server (on a local network) with double parity to be safe for your data?

[Squid]

People are winding up getting into to trouble because they are either:

• Exposing the ports used to control the webGUI (80 / 443)
• Putting the entire server into a DMZ because they can't figure out how to forward a particular port
• Not having a root password

 

It's hard to not have a server and not have any ports forwarded to the server.  IE: Plex  And this is completely fine.  If you need to have access to docker applications, then either use a reverse proxy or Wireguard (or openVPN-AS)

 

If you need to have access to the webUI remotely, then install the Unraid.net plugin (as a bonus this also gives access to any VM's without passed-thru video cards)

 

I'm not particularly worried.

[Squid]

So far as your data is concerned, it really all depends upon your own measure of redundancy.  No raid system is a backup.  

 

Unraid has inherent advantages over a traditional RAID system where if you exceed your level of redundancy you do not lose all of your data, only part of it.  (NB: I have no clue what-so-ever why anyone would ever run a traditional RAID or ZFS on a home server unless they needed the access speed - the risks just aren't worth it).

 

I have zero problems running 12 drives per server on a single parity drive.  Actual drive failures are exceedingly rare.  Most "failures" are because of poor cabling.  If I went beyond 12 drives on each server, then I might consider double parity.

[trurl]

3 hours ago, Squid said:

Most "failures" are because of poor cabling.

And most data loss is due to user error.