• r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yep. I entirely agree about the good points. I am just always weary about removing options like this, regardless of intention.

    I’d be fine if for example I’m running my own wireguard implementation, I could choose the suite to use, not negotiate anything and ensure my client has the same configuration.

    I’d probably not use it, but I like the option, and knowing that anyone that wants to try to break this now also needs to guess what options I’m running.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      knowing that anyone that wants to try to break this now also needs to guess what options I’m running.

      Unless your security model has you being specifically targeted by advanced threat actors, the most likely scenario is that you’ll be affected by randomly discovered security vulnerabilities and not individuals tailoring an attack for your configuration.

      Obfuscation of your configuration doesn’t add much security and using obscure settings could just as easily result in security vulnerabilities of their own. Vulnerabilities which, due to the obscurity of your configuration, may not be discovered by white hats for much longer.

      I know that, if wireguard is exploitable, it’s very unlikely to be me that would be targeted. There are larger and more lucrative targets acting as honeypots for everyone else.

    • deur@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      No. You are making assumptions about security and ultimately assuming you’re the only one who thought this along the way.