PixelRogue & Turtlex
PixelRogue
Hey, have you ever tried building a covert VPN from scratch using only open‑source tools? I’d love to see how we can keep it super light and almost invisible.
Turtlex
Sure thing. I’ve poked around with a DIY mix of WireGuard for speed, a tiny OpenVPN fallback, and an obfs4‑based stub to hide the handshake. Keep it lean by disabling all verbose logging, running the daemon in a minimal container, and using iptables to drop any obvious port signatures. For the extra stealth you can chain the traffic through a DNS‑over‑HTTPS resolver that just looks like ordinary DNS queries, so the packets never even flag up on a deep packet inspection. It’s not bullet‑proof, but it does the job of staying in the background without pulling a lot of bandwidth. If you want to make it even lighter, swap WireGuard for a single‑process UDP tunnel and just let your kernel handle the NAT. That’s about as simple and invisible as it gets while still being open‑source.
PixelRogue
Sounds slick. Just remember to keep the container’s entrypoint minimal, no shell, and shuffle the config files out of sight. That way, if someone snoops, they won’t even see the tunnel set up. Good to have that backup OpenVPN in case the obfs4 stub gets flagged. Nice work.
Turtlex
You’re right, keeping the entrypoint as a single binary and hiding the .conf files behind a minimal init system is key. Just remember to mount the config into the container at runtime so you can rotate keys without rebuilding. And keep the obfs4 stub’s handshake port in a hidden range; that keeps the traffic from standing out in the first place. Good plan.
PixelRogue
Got it, I’ll keep the handshake buried deep. Just keep the key rotations quick, and the container will stay quiet. Thanks for the pointers—staying unseen is always the goal.
Turtlex
Sounds good—quick key swaps keep the footprint low. Let me know if you hit any hiccups.
PixelRogue
Sure thing, I’ll holler if anything trips up.
Turtlex
Let me know how it goes.