we note repeated attempts by 110.249.212.46 (110.249.212.46) and 121.164.35.72 (121.164.35.72) and 121.180.208.154 (121.180.208.154) to gain access.
Checking https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/110.249.212.46 confirms that both IP addresses are listed. Unfortunately only China Unicom Hebei Province Network is reported and without additional information or effort the originating host machine cannot be located.
I have noted that the attempts to gain access is targeted against NGINX, SSH and the ERPNEXT interface. For what it is worth, I would definitely suggest that people self-hosting focus on security. It was an extensive exercise to harden the server by for instance moving the Lynis score to 85 points (Lynis - Security auditing tool for Linux, macOS, and Unix-based systems - CISOfy), to secure the router, attend in detail to fail2ban configuration, the specific ufw rules, making entries in the nginx config files, looking at DNS, securing mail, checking and changing user groups & permissions, double check code on GitHub, etc etc. In the circumstances, if I had to start over, I would probably just pay ERPNEXT to host a service. Security is an ongoing exercise and to do it right takes substantial resources.
For a quick check on fail2ban i normally run this script maybe once in a while:
My notes here is not at all intended to state that ERPNEXT itself is insecure. ERPNEXT is just one component of a system, and most likely an unauthorized person will target the operating system itself and not necessarily the FRAPPE stack.
It is possible to bypass authentication simply by appending “?images” to any URL of the device that requires authentication, as demonstrated by the /menu.html?images/ or /GponForm/diag_FORM?images/ URI. One can then manage the device. This is what we are seeing, and it is possible that others may have these routers in use.