stunnel
Fewer than 5 people recommend it so far, so there's no written verdict. Here is what commenters said.
3recommend
1warn against
Dec 14, 2025first mention
Sep 20, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“Use a local forward proxy, e.g., stunnel, haproxy, etc.”
Show 1 more
Caveats and dissent
“stunnel crashes at under 100 handshakes per second”
Often compared with
Threads where it came up
- Stunnel 4 mentions
- Spain orders blocks on Archive.today and its mirrors 1 mention
- Ask HN: What Are You Working On? (December 2025) 1 mention
Also written as Stunnel. Data: stunnel.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 6
“Use a local forward proxy, e.g., stunnel, haproxy, etc.”
I was involved in a very similar situation once. I recommend wireguard for this, it's mature for years, has superb support in linux and some BSDs and there are userspace implementations if you need that. It wraps traffic in UDP, the overhead is much smaller thus throughput mich higher than traditional TCP-based VPN (you want to avoid tcp-in-tcp!). There were once patches posted to lkml that passed QoS-flags from the
“then stunnel is easier to use in this context than ssh”
“I used it once with althttpd.”
“I use it to wrap my gstreamer tcp streams in TLS”
“stunnel crashes at under 100 handshakes per second”