this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
48 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

53958 readers
278 users here now

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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
48
Wireguard over IPv6 (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by filister@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hi all, I am behind CGNAT, but my ISP router is allocating real IPv6 addresses to my devices that can be exposed. I have a Proxmox and I have installed Wireguard on an LXC container and configured it to listen to the IPv6 address.

I was wondering if I need to do something else to protect my Wireguard installation? I have exposed only the default UDP port to the outside and port scanners are not working on UDP ports as far as I know. Shall I do something else to protect my installation or the attack vector is already minimal and doesn't require further hardening? What's your opinion?

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WaterWaiver@aussie.zone 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

As far as I understand, wireguard is designed so that it can't be portscanned. Replies are never sent to packets unless they pass full auth.

This is both a blessing and a curse. It unfortunately means that if you misconfigure a key then your packets get silently ignored by the other party, no error messages or the likes, it's as if the other party doesn't exist.

EDIT: Yep, as per https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/

In fact, the server does not even respond at all to an unauthorized client; it is silent and invisible.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

It unfortunately means that if you misconfigure a key then your packets get silently ignored by the other party

After ipsec troubleshooting phase 1 & 2, WG is still a blessing.

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You are pretty much as safe as it gets as long as you update that container. Ip/Port scanning basically isnt a thing in ipv6 land as youd have to scan the entire /64 which amounts to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just make sure you're not using an EUI64 address. That significantly narrows down the number of addresses per subnet to scan. The bots found one of my computers that was using one. It took them 3 years to find it though.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Thanks to both of you, my same thoughts, but I also wanted to hear an outside perspective as I am not so well versed in IPv6. But it sounds reassuring. Shall I also consider exposing some HTTP/S services for media over IPv6 is also relatively safe, as long as I have MFA etc?

[–] jores@infosec.exchange 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@filister You should keep in mind that every "normal" HTTPS certificate is recorded publicly (certificate transparency, see e.g. crt.sh). If you do expose services, you most likely won't get security by obscurity. You might be able to keep your services a bit more hidden when you expose them with IPv6 only, but not when you use a Let's Encrypt certificate with a proper DNS entry.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

True, maybe the best way then is to expose them only within your Wireguard network.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago

Yes, that's fine as long as whatever you're hosting is designed to be safely used on the internet. Just keep it up to date and only expose the stuff you need to. I would suggest setting up fail2ban to block IPs that repeatedly fail to log in though. Depending on what you're hosting, you may need bot protection, but if all they can see is a login page, they shouldn't be too much of an issue.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Not entirely true! There are ways to scan IPv6 space efficiently without brute force that are in RFCs

[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

You could also secure what peers inside the tunnel can access, particularly if you plan to give other people access. I.e. only allow only port 443 on a given server using a reverse proxy. It's not a major threat either way but it would reduce the amount of access if someone gets into your phone/laptop etc.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Wireguard has very little attack surface