问题
Seeking review, comments, point out issues, link to available tested, better solution…
This idea is to provide secure remote access into EC2 instances and allow backend instances to reach internet when required for update, install packages, etc. I just started to pickup AWS on my own and had no prior experience with AWS. I learned the method to secure remote access (like SSH) is to restrict the SSH source IP, create jump/bastion hosts, then internet access for backend/private subnet would be NAT instance/gateway or proxy. For a small setup of <20 servers, 1 to 2 admins.. looked overkilled.
I think of using AWS CLI, security groups and network ACLs to provide “just enough” protection for small setup. No need to open SSH to public when not required, or restricting to only specific IP, extra instances or pay for NAT Gateway per AZ. I searched a little but can’t seem to find what in mind and so I did a little scripts to test. My scripting experience is extremely low, more of a GUI guy.. so please bear with me.
Test setup; 1 Public subnet, security group allow http, https & ssh from all IP. ACL allow ingress of http/https & ephemeral ports, and outbound to all. Auto assign public IP.
1 Private/backend subnet, security group allow required ports from Public subnet and ssh from all IP. ACL allow traffic from VPC’s CIDR, ephemeral, and outbound to all. Don’t assign public IP. Routing table to allow both subnets to reach internet.
Laptop configured with AWS CLI and access keys. Predefined scripts to add SSH rule in ACL to allow current public IP to access specific subnet.
aws ec2 create-network-acl-entry --network-acl-id acl-public/backend --ingress --rule-number 801 --protocol tcp --port-range From=22,To=22 --cidr-block “$(curl http://checkip.amazonaws.com)”/32 --rule-action allow
To list current instances and IP;
aws ec2 describe-instances --output text --query 'Reservations[*].Instances[*].[InstanceId,NetworkInterfaces[*].Association.PublicIp,Tags[?Key==`Name`].Value]' --filters "Name=network-interface.subnet-id,Values=subnet-backend"
To access backend instance and allow it internet access; I copy and paste the InstanceId from above as script parameter.
if [ ! -n "$1" ]
then
echo "need InstanceID"
exit
fi
#Get a EIP
aws ec2 allocate-address --domain vpc --output text > $1.txt
#read variables
read eip d ip < $1.txt
#Associate Ip to instance
echo "issuing instance "$eip " with ip "$ip
aws ec2 associate-address --output text --instance-id $1 --allocation-id $eip > $1"EIP".txt
#ssh to instance
echo "ssh to "$ip
ssh ec2-user@$ip -i Vrigina-private-key.pem
#remove EIP
read asid < $1"EIP".txt
aws ec2 disassociate-address --association-id $asid
aws ec2 release-address --allocation-id $eip
echo "removed eip"
cat $1.txt $1"EIP".txt > $1"-"`date +"%Hh-%Mm-%d-%b-%y"`.txt
rm $1.txt $1"EIP".txt
Then another script to remove the SSH allow rule in the ACL. Public subnet instances, just need to add SSH and remove the rule will do.
There are rooms for improvement; like automate the selection of instances, automatic daily check (maybe use AWS config/Lambda) and alert if there is still backend instance public IP and ACL SSH rule not removed. Script lack error checking, no MFA (no idea how), etc..
I did not test with a webserver and DB setup, not sure will there be service interruption.
Issue? Too much effort? During the duration when the backend instance gained access to the internet, SG and ACL do block incoming traffic. Private network ACL can be configured to Deny SSH from public subnet instance. So it look OK..
Regards.
回答1:
Too much effort for a trivial setup. What you need is something like: VPC with Public and Private Subnets (NAT)
Why do you think a NAT is a overkill for your setup? It is perfect for your setup. If cost is an issue, go with a t2.nano which costs $5/month. Do not mess with ACLs unless you know what exactly you are doing. A NAT and a bastion (both t2.nano) along with security groups can solve your problem. Don't overcomplicate and reinvent something that AWS already provides.
回答2:
Sorry, not enough space in the comments box.
To prepare for the CSA-Associate exam, I setup both NAT instance and gateway, and jump server for hand-on, then I think wouldn’t it be easier to just do away with them (for the test, I still need to know). Then I don't need to setup 2 for HA, test failover, patch the instances, monitor them, no need jump hosts, ssh pass-through or concern too much about ssh vulnerability.
So, it look like a less complicated setup than NAT and jump box.
I find network ACL easy to understand and I think it should be configured to allow only the required traffic. It work rather well with security group; SG provide stateful and ACL stateful-less, both should be put to good use. Network security should follow IAM concept of least privilege.
Add on 7 Sep ; Technical it is just allow ssh to access the instance from my current IP and then add an EiP to the instance. Making it just like a public facing instances.
If you know how to use the web console to allow ssh ingress via ACL and assign an EIP to instance, the script is just to do that on our behalf. A better script would help to make it easier and quicker.
If there is concern about messing with ACL. To me the ACL and security group should be tighten away. If I do implement NAT instance and Bastion, they will be in another subnet and their own ACL & SG to protect them. Which make it more complicated. NAT and jump features are not a replacement or reduce having a restrictive ACL and SG.
To me, this idea is simple to understand and implement, it is middle ground between not having anything and implementing both NAT & Jump services. No requirement for PAT(NAT), SSH hoping, configure Winscp with tunnel to transfer file, extra subnet, ACL, SG, etc..
Found this from AWS, it listed more disadvantages of having Bastion host and propose way to remove it. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/mt/replacing-a-bastion-host-with-amazon-ec2-systems-manager/
I think the above is good suggestion. Once the Bastion host is removed, if there is ever a need to ssh into the backend instance directly.. I would likely just allow ssh via ACL and add a EIP temporary.
Will AWS release Shared Proxy gateway with secure DNS? It should be faster, cheaper? (since less traffic out), secure.. I would replace NAT gateway/instance with this.. if I ever get a job doing handing AWS..
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46035055/aws-small-setup-secured-public-access-idea-do-away-with-nat-gateway