• drath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    This post makes it look like there’s something serious ly wrong with openvpn, but it’s just them not wanting to deal with it and deprecating it.

    Oh well, guess Ill put a note not to use them. My country blocks VPN protocols and wg specifically, so for my usecase I need as many protocols supported as possible, preferrably mimicking other innocuous protocols.

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Because OpenVPN is fiddly to set up and modern Wireguard setups seem to scale well enough.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        Don’t let openvpn get a swelled head. Itself it was just a Bender project (“I’m gonna write vtun better; with hookers and beer!”) anyway.

    • redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      Not sure about that. I set up a wg vpn server on a system which then became unresponsive whenever wg was fully saturating the network. Turns out there is apparently no way to throttle or prioritize a wg server, the only way I could think of would be to dedicate a vm to solely the wg vpn and throttle that vm in its networking.
      I instead switched to openvpn which can simply be throttled via a line in its configuration.

      Besides that missing feature, openvpn also doesn’t require figuring out the right iptables commands to verbatim paste into its config as startup and shutdown commands. Setting it up was way easier than wg (though openvpn too wasn’t exactly user-friendly).

      WG to me seems too clunky and unfinished for more mainstream usage, though I am sure it wouldn’t be an issue for a large commercial user like mullvad that will have no issue with all that.

      • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Regarding link saturation - have you tried tc/wondershaper? https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/28198/how-to-limit-network-bandwidth#28203

        Iptables commands - that was needed at the very launch of wg, I’ve not had to deal with it for some time now.

        Personal/commercial use - I’m on a completely opposite side. It’s perfect for personal use, but its lack of dhcp support makes me question its capability in a commercial setting. Many providers offer it, so clearly that’s not an insurmountable task, but I’m still curious how they sort out their backend.

        • philpo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah, to be honest, WG out of the box is really nice for tunneling and static IP road warriors. For larger deployments it’s a bit of a PIA without DHCP.

          Sadly.

          But things like Netbird make it a bit easier.

  • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    4 days ago

    Urgh, I don’t really have time to do this migration but guess I’m planning it in anyway.

    Past me was a lazy bum. But I’m confident that future me is all over this. Time for a nap.

    • Javi@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Damn you sir, you didn’t need to call me out with that last paragraph.

      No, I know it wasn’t my shoe, but look at how well it fits!

      • dinckel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’ve had an active iVPN sub for almost 8 years now. Cannot say anything bad about them whatsoever

        • mybuttnolie@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          recently switched from mullvad to ivpn, and the servers are noticeably slower. with mullvad all the servers I used achieved my connections max speed 500 mb/s but on ivpn they usually do 50 - 300, and sometimes i need to switch server because they go down (i use european servers). only reason i switched was because mullvad causes a wakelock on mint cinnamon and it drives me nuts.

            • OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Some sort of internal error specific to them and their setup. Mullvad should function flawlessly on Mint. I’ve used and installed mint on multiple PCs and all sorts of drives including usbs. The repo for updating mullvad app usually needs corrected but that is it. Mint and Mullvad are solid.

            • mybuttnolie@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              it hasn’t happened on other distros but i have other bigger issues on them so i never could test for a longer period. took me a year to find what caused it and it hasn’t happened since i switched from mullvad. fun bonus: ovpn destroyed my nvidia drivers on mint…

              • Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                I started on mint years ago and it was an okay foot in the door, but would not recommend to anyone (including beginners). Fedora is my goto for new users these days. I use arch (btw) and have had much more luck on rolling release.

                Not gonna try to convince you off Mint, but it does sound like you’re having issues with it.

                • mybuttnolie@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  I’ve been itching to install ultramarine but earlier I’ve had bad times with fedora on my hw. also because i host jellyfin at my home network, i kinda need x11 because i have a little program that keeps my system awake when network traffic crosses a certain threshold, using xdotool. and no, that’s not the cause for the wakelock issue. i know ydotool but no time to get into it in the near future

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I only have one problem with this. When they say wireguard being crypto opinionated is a good thing. I am weary to agree with that statement entirely.

    While it is good for stability (only one stack to support and get right, and to be secure and efficient) I do wonder about overall and future security. Saying “You must use this specific cipher suite because we think it’s the best” is a bit of a dangerous road to take.

    I say this just because Curve 25519 is considered a very secure elliptic curve, to the best of my very limited knowledge on this subject. But we had a certain dual elliptic curve pseudo random number generator was pushed as “best practice” (NIST backed) some time ago, which didn’t turn out so well, even omitting possible conspiracy scenarios, it had known weaknesses even before it was recommended. [1]

    Since then I’ve generally not been a huge fan of being given one option as “the right way” when it comes to cryptography. Even if it is the “best” it gives one target to try to find a weakness in, rather than many.

    I say all this as a wireguard user, it’s a great, fast and reliable VPN. I just have concerns when the choice of using other algorithms and especially putting my own chosen chain together is taken away. Because it puts the exact same target to break on every one of us, rather than having to work out how to break multiple methods and algorithms and multiple combinations.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG

    • reisub@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think the idea behind opinionated cryptography is not only the idea of “We think this is the best, so you have to use it”, but most importantly it removes all requirements of the protocol supporting cipher negotiation. This makes the protocol much simpler, easier to audit and as a result more secure. And if the cryptography in the protocol ever shows a weakness, then Wireguard v2 needs to be released as a breaking change. See all the SSL/TLS versions

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yep. I entirely agree about the good points. I am just always weary about removing options like this, regardless of intention.

        I’d be fine if for example I’m running my own wireguard implementation, I could choose the suite to use, not negotiate anything and ensure my client has the same configuration.

        I’d probably not use it, but I like the option, and knowing that anyone that wants to try to break this now also needs to guess what options I’m running.