> I'd rather expose a Wireguard port and control my keys than introduce a third party like Tailscale.
Ideal if you have the resources (time, money, expertise). There are different levels of qualifications, convenience, and trust that shape what people can and will deploy. This defines where you draw the line - at owning every binary of every service you use, at compiling the binaries yourself, at checking the code that you compile.
> I am not sure why people are so afraid of exposing ports
It's simple, you increase your attack surface, and the effort and expertise needed to mitigate that.
> It's the way the Internet is meant to work.
Along with no passwords or security. There's no prescribed way for how to use the internet. If you're serving one person or household rather than the whole internet, then why expose more than you need out of some misguided principle about the internet? Principle of least privilege, it's how security is meant to work.
> It's simple, you increase your attack surface, and the effort and expertise needed to mitigate that.
Sure, but opening up one port is a much smaller surface than exposing yourself to a whole cloud hosting company.
Ah… I really could not disagree more with that statement. I know we don’t want to trust BigCorp and whatnot, but a single exposed port and an incomplete understanding of what you’re doing is really all it takes to be compromised.
Even if you understand what you are doing, you are still exposed to every single security bug in all of the services you host. Most of these self hosted tools have not been through 1% of the security testing big tech services have.