> I think it's a relatively small attack surface. Plus, you can obfuscate that too by using a random port for Wireguard (instead of the default 51820): if Wire

> I think it's a relatively small attack surface. Plus, you can obfuscate that too by using a random port for Wireguard (instead of the default 51820): if Wireguard isn't able to authenticate (or pre-authenticate?) a client, it'll act as if the port is closed. So, a malicious actor/bot wouldn't even know you have a port open that it can exploit.