this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
133 points (99.3% liked)

Selfhosted

60093 readers
1118 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, and your account is at least 7 days old, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[โ€“] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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?

[โ€“] dieTasse@feddit.org 1 points 1 month 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.