The documentation page works for me currently but I don’t have a better suggestion for you.
I don’t like opening up UCP to the world mostly for security reasons but that doesn’t mean that you won’t have the time and the knowledge to properly implement and secure everything and keep it running for years to come.
For us spending the $25/year/user is worth it as that means we don’t have to spend time on trying to implement, deploy and maintain another solution.
Somebody else here though might have a better suggestion for you that would fit your budget and skill level to implement and maintain.
This is precisely why I opened the thread. There are lots of posts about “security reasons” but, as far as I can see, no explanation of why it is insecure. Is there somewhere that these security risks are documented?
Because of the minimum licence requirement, for us it would be £125 (GB) per person per year just to allow maybe one call a fortnight. That’s effectively £5 per call which is not something we could justify.
@david55 is correct here. It’s simply a cost/benefit analysis. Opening up the ports to the world to be able to access simply gives malicious actors something to work against. There might be no known problems today that somebody could exploit to get in but what are the chances that over the lifetime of a system years from now something is discovered and used to breach a system? Multiply that by however many installations you have and there is your reason for leaving open only the stuff that has to be open for functionality of the system.