Selfhosted

61054 readers

972 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

134

Replacing Tailscale with a 2-VPS WireGuard setup (No port forwarding) (the.unknown-universe.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by TheIPW@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I wanted to move away from Tailscale but found Headscale a bit too convoluted for what I actually needed.

Ended up with a simple WireGuard setup using two VPSes: one as a VPN hub, the other acting as a reverse proxy back into my home lab.

It lets me expose services publicly without any inbound port forwarding on my home connection.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

An excerpt from the Wireguard Whitepaper:

One design goal of WireGuard is to avoid storing any state prior to authentication and to not send any responses to unauthenticated packets. With no state stored for unauthenticated packets, and with no response generated, WireGuard is invisible to illegitimate peers and network scanners. Several classes of attacks are avoided by not allowing unauthenticated packets to influence any state.

After opening an SSH port and watching the number of attacks I understand the concern about opening any port on a router, but it seems the worry about opening a port for WG is way overblown.

As of now I can find zero reports of a properly configured open WG port ever being successfully used by attackers to access a network.

Anyone have better/more recent info?

[–] dieTasse@feddit.org 1 points 2 months ago

At an age of ai hacking there is no way I am opening ports on my router. Especially now at the beginning when we don't know how much is already being exploited.