
Le Panthéon de la Souveraineté — Updated!
Infrastructure cloud modulaire, redondante et 100% souveraine pour s'affranchir des GAFAM. Guides techniques, architecture Zero-Trust et chiffrement interne (DoT/DoH)
🏠 Developed on: GitLab · 🪞 Mirror: GitHub · 🌐 Website: pantheon-souverainete.eu
🏛️ The Pantheon of Sovereignty
A 100% sovereign, redundant and secure cloud infrastructure, designed to break free entirely from the GAFAM. Version 2.1.0-alpha — Full structural overhaul. Starting from scratch.
📋 Table of Contents
- A word about the silence
- Philosophy & Methodology
- Architecture (12 Deities)
- Trust Tiers & Dependencies
- Affiliate Links
- Documentation & Guides
- Prerequisites & Contacts
- Roadmap
- Licenses
🙏 A word about the silence (2 months)
I owe you an apology. The project has not progressed publicly over the past 2 months.
The truth: it was not an abandonment. I worked under the radar on a complete structural overhaul. V1.x had shaky foundations, so I made the decision to start over from a blank page rather than patch things up.
Concrete proof that the project is alive: the showcase website is online (pantheon-souverainete.eu).
Lesson learned: I no longer promise specific dates. The guides will arrive "when they're ready".
🧠 Philosophy & Methodology
Versioning & History
Important note: The earlier versions (1.0.0, 1.1.0) were alphas before the suffix was formally adopted. No stable version has ever been released — everything is in alpha.
| Version | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|
| v1.x | ❌ Outdated | Initial architecture, guides published as they went |
| v2.1.0-alpha | 🚧 In progress | Full structural overhaul. Starting from scratch. |
🤔 Philosophy on Forks
Recurring question: "Why do you use [X] rather than its fork [Y], which is more popular in the self-hosted community?"
My answer: I deliberately limit the use of forks. A fork creates a structural lag in updates relative to the upstream project, which can introduce security vulnerabilities or incompatibilities.
I only favour a fork if it brings a SIGNIFICANT gain in:
- ✅ Security (audited code, vulnerabilities fixed faster)
- ✅ Privacy (telemetry removed, privacy-first features)
In all other cases: I stick with the upstream project.
Example 1: Debian > Ubuntu
| Criterion | Debian | Ubuntu |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Source | Fork of Debian |
| Stability | ✅ Rock-solid (rigorous testing) | ⚠️ Sometimes regressions |
| Security patches | ✅ Direct (Debian Security team) | ⚠️ Delay (Canonical has to merge) |
| Philosophy | Community-driven, sober | Commercial, "user-friendly" |
Why Debian?
"We can't afford to wait for a patch on the system itself. It's a matter of security and stability."
Example 2: AmneziaWG > WireGuard (kernel)
| Critère | WireGuard | AmneziaWG |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Source protocol | WireGuard kernel fork |
| Obfuscation | ❌ No | ✅ Native (anti-DPI) |
| Confidentiality | Excellent | ✅ Even better |
| Collaboration | — | ✅ Works with the WireGuard team |
Why AmneziaWG?
"A deliberate fork because of the significant gain in confidentiality (anti-DPI obfuscation). Moreover, the Amnezia team works closely with WireGuard — it's not a 'wild' fork."
Example 3: Bitwarden > Vaultwarden
| Critère | Bitwarden (official) | Vaultwarden (fork) |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Source project | Rust fork (lightweight) |
| Clients | ✅ Official | ⚠️ Uses Bitwarden clients |
| Compatibility | ✅ Guaranteed | ⚠️ Incompatibility windows |
| Synchronized updates | ✅ Yes | ❌ No (possible lag) |
Why Bitwarden and not Vaultwarden?
"Vaultwarden itself states that there may be incompatibility windows where the server is inaccessible to official Bitwarden clients. Beyond security, there is a real compatibility issue. I prefer the official version."
In summary:
- ✅ Debian (source) > Ubuntu (fork) — System stability & security
- ✅ AmneziaWG (fork) > WireGuard — Confidentiality gain (obfuscation)
- ✅ Bitwarden (source) > Vaultwarden (fork) — Compatibility & security
Hosting & Sovereignty
- Primary: Infomaniak (Switzerland) — Data in Switzerland, signed DPA, genuine environmental commitment
- Backups: Hetzner (Germany & Finland) — Cold storage replicated across 2 DCs
- Golden rule: No data rests on a single site.
Can I use V1 while waiting for V2.1?
Technically: Yes, the HS-02 (Firewall) and HS-03 (Gold Image) guides are technically valid.
In practice: ❌ No, it is not recommended.
Why?
- Only 2 of the 3 Special Editions were published in V1 (HS-01 missing)
- Security has been entirely rethought for V2.1
- New security tools will be integrated (e.g., Lynis for hardening audits)
- The V1 guides are therefore outdated in practice
Recommendation: Wait for the publication of the V2.1 guides for an optimal experience.
Author Profile & Transparency
I am not a certified IT professional. This project is the result of a passion for system administration, built through self-training over ~5 years.
- Risk of error: I rely on official documentation, but I am not immune to mistakes.
- AI assistance: The documentation and architecture benefit from AI assistance, but every command is human-verified.
- Ethical stance: Immediate abandonment of any tool whose privacy policy is questionable.
📒 This project is a shared technical logbook.
This is my personal infrastructure, built in my free time and for my own needs. I document it and share it because I hope it can help others in their journey toward digital sovereignty.
The guides progress at my own pace — when I have time available. If the content helps you or inspires you, I am sincerely glad. If the publication pace or certain technical choices don't suit you, I completely understand: everyone has their own constraints, priorities and vision.
The goal remains simple: to pass on what I learn, in my own way, without pretension.
Limitation of Liability
Educational and personal project. The guides are provided "as is", without express or implied warranty.
- No Guarantee of Accuracy: The author does not guarantee the absence of errors or future incompatibilities.
- Security & Vulnerabilities: No architecture is "vulnerability-free." The guides reflect the best of my knowledge as of their writing date.
- Deployment Responsibility: It is imperative to test any procedure in an isolated environment before production. The administrator assumes full responsibility for the security of their data.
🗺️ Architecture: The 12 Deities
⚠️ Important V2.1: All deities are undergoing revision/reintegration into the new architecture.