NoPorts vs. Tailscale

Choosing the right solution for secure remote access and network connectivity isn’t a decision to be made lightly. Both NoPorts and Tailscale offer ways to connect devices remotely, but they approach the challenge with fundamentally different architectures and security philosophies. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for aligning your choice with your organization's risk tolerance and operational needs.

Tailscale focuses on creating mesh networks, aiming for ease of initial setup and seamless connectivity between networks. Leveraging WireGuard, it attempts direct connections whenever possible, which can simplify initial deployment, particularly for individuals or small teams seeking rapid connectivity.

NoPorts, on the other hand, centers its design around the core principle of minimizing the attack surface. By removing open ports, it makes all devices invisible on the network. Secure connections are established only after authentication, eliminating the possibility of bad actors exploiting a variety of vulnerabilities and dramatically simplifying firewall management. This design choice reflects a strong emphasis on security from the ground up.

Connection Model

Tailscale operates by joining devices to a virtual network. Once joined, devices on the same network can often communicate with each other by default. This network-centric model can be convenient for broad connectivity, but it necessitates meticulous and ongoing configuration of access controls to ensure proper segmentation and prevent unintended communication pathways. Without rigorous management, this default-allow approach can inadvertently create attack vectors and expose sensitive resources to a wider range of devices.

NoPorts uses a host-to-host connection model. Instead of joining networks, you explicitly define which specific hosts are allowed to communicate with each other. This granular control provides a clear and auditable map of all active connections. NoPorts requires deliberate authorization for each connection, promoting a more controlled and secure, zero trust environment.

With NoPorts, you don’t need to patch exposed services, configure Access Control Lists (ACLs), or manage IP allow lists—because there’s no surface to begin with, significantly reducing the overhead of security maintenance.

Security Foundation

A fundamental difference lies in how each solution handles network exposure. Tailscale may attempt to open ports through NAT traversal techniques. While aiming for direct connectivity, this can increase the attack surface, even if these ports are intended to be opened temporarily. The reliance on Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) in certain scenarios to automate port forwarding, while simplifying setup in some environments, is widely recognized as a potential security risk.

NoPorts eliminates the need for any open inbound ports, making your devices and network invisible and shielding them from any unauthorized external connections. All communication is routed through TCP relays. This approach simplifies firewall configuration (no inbound initiated traffic allowed) and eliminates the risks associated with listening services exposed to the internet. By maintaining a closed network perimeter, NoPorts inherently reduces the potential avenues for attack.

By eliminating open ports, NoPorts removes entire classes of network-based attacks, shrinking your threat landscape and accelerating incident response by focusing efforts on authenticated connections.

Transparency and Control

Understanding how your connectivity solution operates is crucial for trust and security. Tailscale's connection establishment and routing can be less transparent to the customer. While aiming for simplicity, this abstraction might make it harder to diagnose connectivity issues or fully grasp the network pathways in place.

NoPorts, with its explicit connection definitions, offers a clear view of how communication is established. The requirement to define each allowed connection provides inherent transparency and facilitates easier auditing and understanding of your security posture.

Architectural Choices

Tailscale often relies on a centralized controller for managing key aspects of the network. This centralized model can simplify management for many people but introduces a potential single point of failure and a central point of control that can become a target.

NoPorts adopts a distributed architecture, allowing organizations to manage their own infrastructure components and communicate with others on the platform. This design enhances resilience and can be advantageous for organizations with specific compliance or regulatory requirements. The ability for independent entities to manage their own connections while still interoperating offers a unique flexibility.

Ease of Use and Security

Tailscale is often praised for its straightforward initial setup, which can be appealing for those seeking immediate connectivity. However, the responsibility of properly configuring access controls to secure the network falls heavily on the administrator. Overlooking these crucial steps can lead to unintended security vulnerabilities.

NoPorts requires a more deliberate approach to setup, as each connection needs to be explicitly defined. While this might involve a slightly longer initial configuration, it inherently encourages a more security-conscious mindset and results in a more controlled and transparent connectivity environment.

Authentication

A fundamental aspect of secure remote access is how user and device identities are verified. Both NoPorts and Tailscale employ distinct authentication mechanisms to establish trust before allowing connections.

Tailscale leverages the concept of a "Tailnet," a private network secured by cryptographic keys. It integrates with various Single Sign-On (SSO) providers such as Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Okta, and others. This allows users to authenticate using their existing organizational credentials, streamlining the login process and leveraging established identity management systems. Once authenticated via SSO, Tailscale manages device authorization and key distribution within the Tailnet.

In contrast, NoPorts, built upon the atProtocol, utilizes a unique public-key-based authentication system called atKeys. Each user is provisioned with a personal set of cryptographic keys – a public key that can be shared and a private key that remains securely stored on the user's device. Authentication is established through a secure key exchange process, ensuring strong, mutual authentication between connecting parties without reliance on traditional usernames and passwords or centralized identity providers. This method inherently provides strong cryptographic identity and eliminates the risks associated with password vulnerabilities.

The choice between these authentication models often aligns with the overall architectural and security philosophies of each solution. Tailscale's SSO integration prioritizes ease of use and leveraging existing identity infrastructure, while NoPorts' atKeys system emphasizes a passwordless, public-key-based approach for enhanced security and decentralized identity.

Scalability

While Tailscale offers a quick entry point, scaling the network to encompass dozens or hundreds of nodes can introduce significant complexity in managing Access Control Lists (ACLs), subnet routing, and exit nodes. This increasing complexity can lead to management overhead and potential security misconfigurations as the network grows.

NoPorts’ per-connection model maintains consistent visibility and control regardless of scale. The principles of explicit authorization remain the same whether you’re connecting two devices or hundreds, providing a more manageable and auditable security posture as your organization expands.

Key Differences

First Exposure & Attack Surface - Network Exposure

‍

Scalability & Operational Fit

Ultimately, the choice between NoPorts and Tailscale depends on your priorities. While Tailscale offers operational simplicity for rapid deployment, especially in smaller environments, NoPorts is architected from the ground up for organizations that prioritize robust security, granular control, and a minimized attack surface, particularly as they scale.