[6uhrmittag]

There must be more to the story...

If true, I'd check all configured email addresses. They let you configure different addresses for support/bills etc. and will send warnings only to certain addresses.

Hetzner is usually good at revolving issues.

If you don't pay a bill, they eventually will block incoming traffic from the web. They are still reachable from inside hetzner network and they will unblock traffic as soon it's paid.

If the BSI finds Ports that shouldn't be open to the public, they will forward the mail to you and won't take actions.

If you disturb their network due to misconfiguration, they will block you, demand an explanation within 24 or 48 hours and unblock you, if they find it plausible.

If you call them with technical issues - in my experience - you typically want to prepare logs, traceroutes etc. because they will know enough to provide guidance on how to resolve it.

[ngalstyan4]

OP Here.

I have a single configured email address on which I received my welcome email on July 15 and "Server Locking" email today.

Looking into Hetzner dashboard, it seems they did not delete my instance, just turned it off and banned my IP so I cannot ssh into it. There is an option to request unblocking which I will request soon and which wants me to answer "What caused this problem?" and "How do you plan to correct this problem and prevent for the future?".

This was a development instance: running docker, postgres, SchemaSpy, some service emulators, node, vscode and accessed the services through ssh port-forwarding.

It seems there is an "Abuse" incident linked to the blocking of my IP but I only see the incident ID, no additional details.

This was a dev instance, I did not think about making it airtight. I do not rule out that someone broke into it and violated their terms (this happens with production systems and I am definitely a worse engineer than people there). If this happened, I am happy they locked it down but I wish they informed their users in these cases: I had git ssh keys and other secrets there which I proactively revoked and more information on the incident would definitely have helped choose the right course of action.

[sascha_sl]

Some noisy services can cause bans.

I have quite a bit of rep with Hetzner, so they didn't outright nuke me, but I once got an abuse email because I was running an IPFS daemon, and the reference IPFS implementation allows RFC1918 IPs and GCNAT on discovery announcements... so dialing into nowhere a lot upset the router.

With the new no-ip-at-all option you can set up a Network and set up an extra instance as NAT as you would with a home network. That should cut down on issues like that.

[ngalstyan4]

Also, the main reason I did not initially add a lot of info to the story is I do not know what is relevant and what is not because the email I received from them contains even less detail than my post. That is the only thing I really wish changes in the future. Would totally use Hetzner again with that (if I am allowed to, that is)