Selfhosted
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:
-
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!
view the rest of the comments
If it's just wireguard on a nonstandard port, then you are pretty much done. It's UDP and won't reply to incorrectly signed packets so it's essentially invisible.
Putting it on a non standard port will change nothing
Security through obscurity is not sufficient. It's also not nothing.
Wireguard doesn't respond to port scans so it changes nothing
Assume a security researcher finds a bug in wireguard that, if sent a malformed packet, it can crash the service. Then it would be trivialy easy to send that packet to the default port on every IP address and just crash everything for fun.
It costs me nothing to increment the port by 1 and avoid all that drama.
And, to be fair, you'll know more about your setup when you don't use the defaults as you have to learn more...
It is going to make fingerprinting more annoying while evading default port scans. That isnt nothing but you do you boo
I agree that there is some value to obscurity generally, but Wireguard already evades port scans and fingerprinting. Unless a packet is signed with a known key, it gives no response to traffic, so scanners and fingerprinters see a closed port. You ISP can identify WG traffic while you are connected by inspecting your traffic, but random scanners won't see anything. Look on shodan, you won't see Wireguard.