Every public request to one of my sites used to go through a Cloudflare tunnel. I had a cloudflared deployment in my cluster, some routing rules, and everything just worked. And it was free! But that bugged me. TANSTAAFL right? The whole point of selfhosting is to not rely on big cloud company, and there are few bigger than Cloudflare. And Cloudflare’s tunnels decrypt every single packet, so they see everything you do. I really don’t like that.

So I’ve replaced Cloudflare tunnels with Erwan Leboucher’s towonel, a selfhosted tunnel implementation. I still have my DNS on Cloudflare, but no data is moving through them any more.

  • Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I don’t get the need for those tunnels.

    Wouldn’t a simple wireguard setup be enough un less you are behind CG-NAT?

    Wireguard it’s there, free, open source, doesn’t rely on any external server or company…

    What does these “tunnels” actually add?

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I checked and this does a similar thing. You can use WG to punch out a connection, and I have before. The linked program uses quic in a similar way to WG but doesn’t do any of the routing, just registers the connection to a hostname for application level forwarding.

      It looks more that it provides an easy setup for an alternative.

      Both methods can work on cg-nat as well since you are punching out.

    • feannag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      One would be CG-NAT as you mentioned, and some people want to host for other people too, potentially including too many people/too distant/too tech illiterate to easily set up WG.

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 minute ago

      The benefit here is the software by design can’t read your traffic - it’s using SNI to route, not the host header, so SSL pass thru keeps the payload private. It’s billed as shareable for that reason.

      Also this is open source and you can host it yourself.

      Edit: I concede BakedCatboy’s point.

      In either case I would probably just use FRP.

      • Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You missed my point?

        why can’t you just use a wireguard connection between your device and the server, or network?

      • BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I use a wireguard tunnel as a reverse proxy and it does ssl passthrough with sni. Termination happens on my local box and the reverse proxy host doesn’t do any certs.