3 ms·

Just use softether - free, simple, open source, fast and secure. Best of all it runs on almost any platform you could want to run it on (both server and client

Just use softether - free, simple, open source, fast and secure. Best of all it runs on almost any platform you could want to run it on (both server and client!) You can even bounce off or azure to set up the tunnel when your vpn server is behind a natted firewall. It supports 16-channel connections to max out line throughput even over very long distances between server and client. It can support native windows clients, has openvpn shim for legacy client's on that side. I'm not doing it justice - there's so many features (all gui-configurable) that are supremely thought out. Truly one of the best examples of free software I can think of. Edit: https://github.com/SoftEtherVPN/SoftEtherVPN https://github.com/SoftEtherVPN/SoftEtherVPN

mikl 7y ago
> free, simple, open source, fast and secure So is Wireguard?
- therein 7y ago
  And what I like about Wireguard is that you can't port scan for it. The protocol is designed in such a way that the wireguard server won't respond unless you know the right key.
- tgtweak 7y ago
  Not saying wireguard isn't. I will say I've used softether on 10gbps links and hit 8gbps between two continents and that was nearly impossible with every other solution 5 years ago when I first set it up. It's been running flawlessly since then.
  - tanderson92 7y ago
    Wireguard didn't exist 5 years ago, so this comparison seems inapt on the current topic. That is, unless you merely want to promote softether... :-)
mjsir911 7y ago
I've ended up using softether for the sstp server support, and my only complaint with it is that it feels like a second-class citizen from the linux CLI. Configuring it is a pain done through their `vpncmd` command which gives you a shell with custom commands (not very automatable/reproducable) Logging is also stuck between logging to a file or sending it to a syslog port, which, with the rise of systemd, leaves it logging to nowhere that journald can access It's a pretty solid piece of software, but it definitely feels like it was developed for windows GUI admins

mikl 7y ago

> free, simple, open source, fast and secure So is Wireguard?

therein 7y ago
And what I like about Wireguard is that you can't port scan for it. The protocol is designed in such a way that the wireguard server won't respond unless you know the right key.
tgtweak 7y ago
Not saying wireguard isn't. I will say I've used softether on 10gbps links and hit 8gbps between two continents and that was nearly impossible with every other solution 5 years ago when I first set it up. It's been running flawlessly since then.
- tanderson92 7y ago
  Wireguard didn't exist 5 years ago, so this comparison seems inapt on the current topic. That is, unless you merely want to promote softether... :-)

mjsir911 7y ago

I've ended up using softether for the sstp server support, and my only complaint with it is that it feels like a second-class citizen from the linux CLI. Configuring it is a pain done through their `vpncmd` command which gives you a shell with custom commands (not very automatable/reproducable) Logging is also stuck between logging to a file or sending it to a syslog port, which, with the rise of systemd, leaves it logging to nowhere that journald can access It's a pretty solid piece of software, but it definitely feels like it was developed for windows GUI admins