Comment on a VPN that is easily self-hostable and resistant to blocking?
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 3 weeks agoMany of the prominent https VPN protocols are for evading the great firewall of China. OP had that as a requirement, so it is not an unreasonable assumption.
If you are evading less locked down firewalls, then you don’t need as stealthy VPNs.
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Where the fuck do you get this stuff?
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
From OP’s post, of course. If OP does not need to evade firewalls that are that aggressive, then they should have settled for a less stealthy VPN solution, as many of these HTTPS proxy solutions have performance and usability (can often only proxy TCP traffic) tradeoffs.
pr3d@eviltoast.org 3 weeks ago
I haven’t tried WG on 443/udp yet. On my last UK journey I had it on the default WG port and it was blocked a few times. Will try 443/udp @ homelab next time. Every other advanced obfuscating solution sounds pretty complicated and I’m not sure if there will be time to handle this during a journey.
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Also try wireguard over port 53. Often (udp) traffic to port 53 is unblocked because it’s needed for DNS.
What is special about this setup is that it can sometimes get around captive portal wifi.