That’s one of my TODOs on NixOS but I keep procrastinating on that. Today I finally set up adguard home locally on my PC and I want to make it available as a VPN(?) on my phone so I may finally get around to doing that soon-ish. I have zero clue how any of that works or how to set it up, however. Lol
Comment on PSA: Update your Tailscale!
xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 week ago
This feels like it has validated my decision to just use plain wireguard and hardcode my client list. It’s really not too hard to set up, barely different that configuring authorized_keys or ssh.
Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 week ago
This seems like a decent guide on how to set it up:
cyberciti.biz/…/how-to-set-up-wireguard-firewall-…
It’s very similar to the config I’ve got. The nat iptables stuff in step 1 is what enables wireguard to be used as a VPN exit node. (+ net.ipv4.ip_forward=1)
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 week ago
The only downside is that it’s not redundant. I wish it was, somehow.
Tailscale ssh isn’t enabled by default and I for one don’t see the need for it.
Your choice is valid, but you’ve chosen to be responsible for adding new clients everywhere and making sure they can all connect to each other, etc. you have simpler software but more manual work, which is a valid choice if you’re up for it.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 days ago
Also, I’ve never been able to understand how something exposed to the entire internet (a WG server) is considered more secure than something that only connects peers privately to each other.
The attack surfaces are nothing alike.
Even if you limit access to WG with IP blocking there’s still no comparison to something you can’t access at all from outside.
dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
I don’t see it as there being much of a distinction from the two when you say one is public and the other isn’t, i don’t really see it that way. Wireguard may be more obviously public, but they both technically are, right? Otherwise accessing a node just wouldn’t be possible.
If you don’t need something specific that tailscale offers, then wireguard offers probably better security.
Tailscale uses wireguard, but using wireguard itself is removing all of the extra code and services (their connection facilitation layer?) that go with using tailscale.
Tailscale probably isn’t an inconsiquential amount of code added, so it can be a threat, even if it adds additional security layers (identity?). There’s more code to exploit.
Plus, wireguard is so well used directly by so many businesses, orgs and people who NEED it to be secure, and it has so many more eyes going over it that it I can’t see any way that it would be less secure.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 5 days ago
There is something exposed to the Internet in both cases, yes, but it works very differently.
With WG it’s a client-server pattern; the server exposes a port, waits for authorized clients to connect, and when a client connects successfully the server routes their connections into the private LAN with everything that entails.
With TS the public part is a supplier of control configurations and client pairing service. The pairing service needs to be contacted by two authorized clients in order to negotiate a connection between them. Once that’s done, it’s the clients that route each other’s connections into their respective LANs, the pairing server is not involved anymore.
In other words the TS public surface is not WG, it’s their (proprietary) client verification and matching service. The WG connections between clients happen later, privately.
To me, separating client authentication from routing and transport looks like a better design, because it’s multi-layered. You get the normal WG authentication and another layer on top.
“Security” is a relative term. It’s better to think in terms of attack surface, exposure, whether attacks are targeted or not etc. Which are all ongoing factors.
Both TS and WG are popular and being used by lots of people but it’s also important for them to be actively maintained, independently audited, maintain transparency etc.