[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":231},["ShallowReactive",2],{"guide-\u002Fguides\u002Flinux-server-security-review":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"body":6,"date":214,"description":215,"draft":216,"extension":217,"featured":218,"keyTakeaway":219,"meta":220,"navigation":218,"path":221,"primaryKeyword":222,"seo":223,"service":224,"stem":225,"tags":226,"__hash__":230},"guides\u002Fguides\u002Flinux-server-security-review.md","What a Linux server security review actually covers",{"type":7,"value":8,"toc":204},"minimark",[9,13,17,22,30,34,37,50,54,61,100,103,107,110,162,165,169,183,186,190],[10,11,5],"h1",{"id":12},"what-a-linux-server-security-review-actually-covers",[14,15,16],"p",{},"For owners of one internet-facing Linux server who want a prioritised risk picture before they change production config.",[18,19,21],"h2",{"id":20},"key-takeaway","Key takeaway",[14,23,24,25,29],{},"A useful review is ",[26,27,28],"strong",{},"assessment first",": what is exposed, how you get in, what the firewall and patch state look like, and which fixes matter most. It is not a stealth penetration test, and it should not silently change your server.",[18,31,33],{"id":32},"why-people-book-a-review","Why people book a review",[14,35,36],{},"Typical triggers:",[38,39,40,44,47],"ul",{},[41,42,43],"li",{},"A VPS that \"grew\" — Docker apps, reverse proxy, SSH left open to the world",[41,45,46],{},"Preparing for Cyber Essentials \u002F ISO conversations without a full audit programme",[41,48,49],{},"Wanting a clear action list before paying for hands-on hardening",[18,51,53],{"id":52},"what-a-focused-review-usually-includes","What a focused review usually includes",[14,55,56,57,60],{},"On ",[26,58,59],{},"one"," agreed Linux host:",[62,63,64,70,76,82,88,94],"ol",{},[41,65,66,69],{},[26,67,68],{},"Internet exposure"," — listening services, published ports, obvious unnecessary surface",[41,71,72,75],{},[26,73,74],{},"Remote access"," — SSH configuration posture (auth methods, root, who can log in)",[41,77,78,81],{},[26,79,80],{},"Firewall and edge"," — host firewall intent vs reality; reverse proxy as the public front door where relevant",[41,83,84,87],{},[26,85,86],{},"Patch and package posture"," — outdated critical packages; obvious neglected updates",[41,89,90,93],{},[26,91,92],{},"Account and privilege basics"," — weak patterns that show up quickly on a single box",[41,95,96,99],{},[26,97,98],{},"Prioritised findings"," — what to fix first, what can wait, what needs a maintenance window",[14,101,102],{},"You should leave with a written plan and a short findings call — not a vague \"looks fine.\"",[18,104,106],{"id":105},"what-it-is-not","What it is not",[14,108,109],{},"Be wary of reviews that blur into something else:",[111,112,113,126],"table",{},[114,115,116],"thead",{},[117,118,119,123],"tr",{},[120,121,122],"th",{},"Not included by default",[120,124,125],{},"Why",[127,128,129,138,146,154],"tbody",{},[117,130,131,135],{},[132,133,134],"td",{},"Silent remediation",[132,136,137],{},"Changes need agreed scope and a backup\u002Fwindow",[117,139,140,143],{},[132,141,142],{},"Full CREST penetration test",[132,144,145],{},"Different product, different depth and rules of engagement",[117,147,148,151],{},[132,149,150],{},"Estate-wide SOC \u002F 24×7 monitoring",[132,152,153],{},"Ongoing ops, not a one-server review",[117,155,156,159],{},[132,157,158],{},"Application source-code audit",[132,160,161],{},"Separate skill set unless scoped",[14,163,164],{},"Honest limits build trust. If something is out of scope, say so up front.",[18,166,168],{"id":167},"how-it-differs-from-hardening","How it differs from hardening",[38,170,171,177],{},[41,172,173,176],{},[26,174,175],{},"Review"," — observe, prioritise, recommend (assessment only)",[41,178,179,182],{},[26,180,181],{},"Hardening"," — agreed changes applied and verified on the host",[14,184,185],{},"Many clients review first, then harden the top items in a maintenance window.",[18,187,189],{"id":188},"practical-next-step","Practical next step",[14,191,192,193,198,199,203],{},"A focused server security review for one internet-facing Linux server (from £295), with a prioritised action plan and a 60-minute findings call. No changes without a separate agreed scope. Learn more at the ",[194,195,197],"a",{"href":196},"\u002Flinux-server-security-review","security review service page"," or ",[194,200,202],{"href":201},"\u002Fcontact","contact us"," to book an intro call.",{"title":205,"searchDepth":206,"depth":206,"links":207},"",2,[208,209,210,211,212,213],{"id":20,"depth":206,"text":21},{"id":32,"depth":206,"text":33},{"id":52,"depth":206,"text":53},{"id":105,"depth":206,"text":106},{"id":167,"depth":206,"text":168},{"id":188,"depth":206,"text":189},"2026-09-11","What a focused Linux server security review covers — exposure, SSH, firewall, patch posture — and what it deliberately omits before production changes.",false,"md",true,null,{},"\u002Fguides\u002Flinux-server-security-review","linux server security review",{"title":5,"description":215},"security-review","guides\u002Flinux-server-security-review",[227,228,229],"security","review","assessment","Oxc8A3-YJlZbq4alQrW_sp76dlkjE8eSRTlDk-3ZBtY",1792571462412]