this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
87 points (96.8% liked)

Selfhosted

58265 readers
437 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
 

WireGuard is blocked by DPI in 10+ countries now. AmneziaWG 2.0 is a fork that makes the traffic look like random noise - DPI can't tell it apart from normal UDP. Same crypto under the hood, negligible speed overhead.

I wrote an installer that handles the whole setup in one command on a clean Ubuntu/Debian VPS - kernel module, firewall, hardening, client configs with QR codes. Pure bash, no dependencies, runs on any $3/month box. MIT license.

Been running it from Russia where stock WireGuard stopped working mid-2025.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, I'm curious as to the DPI claims. Fortunately, AmneziaWG describes how it differs from WG here: https://docs.amnezia.org/documentation/amnezia-wg/

In brief, the packet format of conventional WireGuard is retained but randomized shifts and decoy data is added, to avail the packets with the appearance of either an unknown protocol or of well-established chatty protocols (eg QUIC, SIP). That is indeed clever, and their claims seem to be narrow and accurate: for a rule-based DPI system, no general rule can be written to target a protocol that shape-shifts its headers like this.

However, it remains possible that an advanced form of statistical analysis or MiTM-based inspection can discover the likely presence of Amnezia-obfuscated WireGuard packets, even if still undecryptable. This stems from the fact that the obfuscation is still bounded to certain limits, such as adding no more than 64 Bytes to plain WireGuard init packets. That said, to do so would require some large timescales to gather statistically-meaningful data, and is not the sort of thing which a larger ISP can implement at scale. Instead, this type of vulnerability would be against particularized targets, to determine if covert communications is happening, rather than decrypting the contents of said communication.

For the sysadmins following along, the threat of data exfiltration is addressed as normal: prohibit unknown outbound ports or suspicious outbound destinations. You are filtering outbound traffic, right?

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 7 points 10 hours ago

As someone living in Russia, it indeed works to trick complex DPI systems. Unlike classic Wireguard, it works.