services/caddy.sh never called ufw allow for any of its published ports.
Confirmed live: ufw status showed no rule for 80 or 443 on a box with
UFW active (default deny incoming), yet HTTPS sites were reachable
fine — Docker manipulates iptables directly for published container
ports (the ports: mapping in Caddy's own compose file), which bypasses
UFW's filtering entirely regardless of what ufw status reports.
This wasn't an actual exposure gap — 80/443 are supposed to be open to
everyone, that's the point of a reverse proxy — but it means ufw status
was actively misrepresenting this box's real firewall state on its two
most externally-facing ports, which is exactly the kind of thing that
looks like a problem (and did, when investigating an unrelated
Let's-Encrypt failure) even though nothing was actually unprotected.
Add explicit ufw allow rules for 80/tcp, 443/tcp, and 443/udp (HTTP/3)
so ufw status reflects reality, matching every other service in this
repo managing its own firewall rules instead of relying on undocumented
Docker/iptables interaction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H4k6J1qXXyYxhGEgnJaMvn
Claude
8bdf4c0a07