It is going to make fingerprinting more annoying while evading default port scans. That isnt nothing
Comment on How much do you secure a home server that's only accessible with VPN?
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 weeks agoPutting it on a non standard port will change nothing
0x0@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
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.
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.
Cyber@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
And, to be fair, you’ll know more about your setup when you don’t use the defaults as you have to learn more…