Comment on How much do you secure a home server that's only accessible with VPN?
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Putting it on a non standard port will change nothing
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Security through obscurity is not sufficient. It’s also not nothing.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Wireguard doesn’t respond to port scans so it changes nothing
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Assume a security researcher finds a bug in wireguard that, if sent a malformed packet, it can crash the service. Then it would be trivately 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.
0x0@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
It is going to make fingerprinting more annoying while evading default port scans. That isnt nothing
sandwichsaregood@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.