Show HN: Cheap and easy throwaway VPN server(a.l3x.in)
2 pointsby alexfortin4 hours ago1 comment
  • ranger_danger4 hours ago
    You don't even need wireguard really, you could just use ssh -D by itself, then either your browser (or foxyproxy) or individual app can point to the local socks proxy, or you can use tun2socks to make a tun(4) network interface out of it. Optionally you can use a network namespace to only route certain apps through it.

    Or ssh -w can do the tun(4) interface for you, and supports both layer 2 and layer 3.

    True that it won't be using UDP (or sshuttle can fix TCP-in-TCP issues for you), but for my usecase it works out better anyway, as many places I frequent restrict UDP usage. Even China doesn't block SSH.

    • alexfortin3 hours ago
      Fair, I still have to find a place that restricts UDP but iirc WireGuard should offer TCP as well.

      By the way, if you check out the repository's README it already shows the SSH use case, but why not to have WireGuard available too? with it there's no need to manually setup any application to use/not use SOCKS, it's as simple as click "Connect" in the WireGuard client and all the traffic including ICMP and what not is tunneled through the server. It can even be installed at the router level so to have all the LAN traffic tunneled automatically, can't easily do that with SSH.

      Different use cases, not saying SSH isn't valid, I just prefer WireGuard UX.