Skip to main content

linux - ssh: transparent redirect of incoming connections based on host- or username

I have a Linux server with a single, static IPv4 address
and several DNS entries pointing to the IP. The server hosts several Docker container,
and listens on port 22 for incoming SSH
connections.




There are three
different use cases, where SSH connections to the server are
made:




  • access to git
    repositories (git.myserver.tld, username is always
    git, access is realized by using different
    keys)

  • access to files using sftp
    (data.myserver.tld, username is always data,
    access is realized by using different keys)

  • direct access
    to the server (myserver.tld, username corresponds to local unix
    user)



The first two
servers (git and data) are each running inside a Docker container. My question is: Is it
somehow possible to redirect incoming SSH connections to the SSH servers of the Docker
containers, if Git or Data is required, or handle it directly if not? Could this be
realized by looking at the username (redirect if it is git or
data, handle it otherwise) or the hostname (is there some
equivalent to SNI for TLS)?




Using another port than 22 is not an
option, as the access should be allowed from environments, where only a few ports are
allowed for outgoing connections.



The user
management is handled by the appropriate Docker container services; there is no
static list of SSH keys used to connect, but no connection ever
uses password authentication.



The server runs
Debian Linux with
OpenSSH.



[Edit]



I
do not think that this is a duplicate, because my questions
was not only about the possibility to define hostname-based virtual
SSH servers. I also asked if it is possible to differ on a per-user basis, which is not
handled by the linked question. The username is transmitted during the SSH session, so
there might be a possibility..

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able