77
Wireguard easy and third party vpn service. (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hi, so been working on this for a week but not really happy with the solutions I find as they seem to be done by induviduals who rely heavily on ai. I got wireguard easy going and can remotly connect which is great but id love to be able to route any internet traffic to and from the wireguard clients to go though another server while filtering my local onsite services. Felt that if i can crack this i dont need to rely on tailscale. The end goal is to have no reliance on tailscale as i am preparing for the eventual enshitification.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Im picking up what your putting down tho. Be so much easier if i could have a vpn service on a dedicated vlan then just link through with some wg configs but annoyingly my router puts wireguard ontop of the entire topography and messes up everything else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I know this don't the solution you are looking for, but your router sounds like the crappy default one you get from your ISP.

    In that case (since you already got this far) consider getting a better one, if not for this, then for the next time it limits your adventures.

    I would suggest looking into OpenWrt if you go this route.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    It definantly isnt a default isp router. And openwrt doesnt support the chip i have in my router as its a tplink enterprise router. I emailed them and they said they will look into implementing it into their omada ecosystem. Unifi dont really excite me anyway they have one hell of a cve and have to answer to the signal directive. Every issue with tp link has been. You need to have acces to the router physically to implement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Every issue with tp link has been. You need to have acces to the router physically to implement.

    Come on, this is not true and you know it. Finding a counterexample was easy:

    https://www.anavem.com/en/news/cybersecurity/tp-link-patches-critical-router-flaws-enabling-rce

    Auth bypass + auth rce flaw. Literal remote code execution, instant own.

    The problem with network appliances/routers is that they all have web ui's, and management api's or something of the sort. Web UI's are extremely complex services, with lots of difficult to secure attack surface. In a router, that attack surface is now running as root (because it has to be, to manage linux (or freebsd, routers are usually based on one of the two) kernel routing and networking.

    So literally every single network appliance and router has had it's own critical vulnerabilities, even open source ones like openwrt.

    The real solution here is to recognize that web interfaces are a security nightmare, and to either disable them or lock them behind ssh.

    (Open)ssh, is known for having extremely few vulnerabilities, only 2.5 critical ones over it's 25+ years of existence. That's a big difference compared to some of these network appliances/routers which have 2+ critical vulns every quarter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah only if you enable their cloud api and dont randomise your web interface port. Both of which i do. I have also pen tested my router remotley. Also i have a router not a router wifi combo. Its not an isp or consumer router. Router splits to poe switcher and a wifi ap puck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    randomise your web interface port

    Randomized interface ports change nothing except for stopping automated scanners. They don't really help. Just lock it behind ssh, physical access or similar, and then never worry about it again.

    Yeah only if you enable their cloud api

    No, all of the local web interfaces have had problems too. Literally every router or network appliance has had similar issues.

    ts not an isp or consumer router

    ISP, consumer, and enterprise routers have all the same issues due to the same architecture. All of them.

    have also pen tested my router remotley.

    Me too. But it's just not about my router being secure today, it's about it being secure tomorrow. I want to be able to rest easy knowing that if a new vulnerability appears in xyz component then I don't have to worry about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Without knowing my infrastructure your making some really impreasive assumptions buddy. If this is your day job i recommend a career change

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago*

    Im very much aware of the cves out on tplink and the one you showed i patched months ago and hardened to recommendation to the rest. Nothings perfect but when you look at security flaws beyween cisco ubiquity and tplink ill go for tp link even tho they are missing some useful features. Im not corperate fan girl but how dead set some ubiquity users are it makes me a bit weary. If i was doing it all again and not buying on a budget id setup my own pfsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent