My list shouldnt be seen as exhaustive. You're right that the project has even more traits with benefits. "But the general sense I am getting is WireGuard is s

My list shouldnt be seen as exhaustive. You're right that the project has even more traits with benefits. "But the general sense I am getting is WireGuard is strongly opinionated and limited...and one way of spinning that is less vulnerable to user error. Personally, I have trouble equating that to meaning WireGuard is more secure." The principles behind which systems are going to be more secure have been consistent from people like Paul Karger doing 1970's designs/pentests to folks like Bernstein later on. The number of vulnerabilities go up with complexity: handling state, potential interactions that are visible, covert/side channels that might not be, and too many options for users increasing odds of bad configs. We've seen these all happen to complex VPN's, too. So, this isn't mere zealous recommendations: many of us have watched decades worth of software broken ignoring proven principles, WireGuard is one of few of any software following them, empirical evidence says it will be more secure in most (if not all) cases, and so we're promoting it. A better metaphor would be security engineers and researchers promoting a security product since it has strong evidence of actually being secure. Which is exactly what you're seeing for at least four of us here. ;)