TL;DR They are moving to wireguard only.
I'm ok with that.
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
264 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
31930 readers
704 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Except the 5 device limit. With OVPN it means 5 connected devices, with WG it means 5 registered public keys.
Say you use the official Mullvad app and also setup some 3rd party WG client on your phone. That's now taking up 2 devices. Or perhaps you do have 6 devices, but you never have more than 2 of them running at once. With WG, that's still 6 devices regardless of them being connected or not, while with OVPN it will indeed be just 2 devices.
That's true. I use user profiles on GrapheneOS and have to have each profile count as its own device in Mullvad, when obviously I'm not going to be using them simultaneously.
Can you not use the same keys for multiple devices like you'd normally be able to?
Not at the same time as they would conflict.
Well sure, but you effectively still have the same 5-connection limit as long as you manage your keys correctly.
That's always borked both connections for me
This is a great point, if they're gonna make this change, they should allow unlimited keys (or at least more than 5) and just limit the number of simultaneous devices on wireguard too. If that's feasable
It might be feasible, but it's a bit awkward to implement because Wireguard is stateless and doesn't know if a client is offline or just hasn't sent any traffic for some time.
That's a pity.
Is there something preventing you from having the same key ready for use on more than one device? So that two devices that are never connected at the same time can take turns using the same key?
Not at all
One of my devices uses three keys because out of the two local servers I have, they seem to go down every other month, so I need a failover.
Unless they're simultaneously connected you could share the same private key in all of the configs.
It just sounds easier to think about it with wireguard then. No surprises.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Wireguard is more elegant and performant, and has a smaller attack surface. OpenVPN, meanwhile, is a legacy protocol, and retiring it should be a good thing.
And when exactly did we declare openvpn a legacy protocol?
About the same time VPN platforms started migrating away from it
I feel like that's kind of a case of circular reasoning though: we move away from it because it's legacy, and it's legacy because we're moving away from it... Mind you, I'm no expert on VPNs; this is just something I thought I'd bring to attention here.
That's what makes software legacy; it falls out of popularity. Plenty of terminal applications have barely changed since the 80s, but they're not "legacy" because they're actively used and maintained.
Can someone explain why this is good or bad?
Not great if you use the transmission-openvpn docker container. Guess I need to come up with a new plan.
Why not use a qbittorrent WireGuard one?
Wasn't aware of this. I'll check it out! One annoying thing with Mullvad though is the wireguard keys count against your device limit and I already have problems with that. Using OpenVPN didn't count against the limit. The again I'm also considering switch to Surfshark since its cheaper.
Yeah the device limit is annoying. I switched to AirVPN when Mullvad stopped doing port forwarding and it’s been fine so far. But you’d run into the same issue with the device limit.
I’m not a network expert so I honestly don’t know the difference between the two protocols enough to say that they’re any benefit of one over the other, but there might be a reason that WireGuard is becoming the default? Idk honestly.
Anyway, AirVPN still suports port forwarding and supports OpenVPN so might be an alternative for you. They don’t do security audits which is imo sketchy and makes me question if they are honest about their no logs policy, but otoh they have been around for a long time and there hasn’t been any incidence, which makes me think they’re probably good enough for torrenting.
There's also Transmission-Wireguard by the same guy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It was good to have it as a backup. I primarily use wireguard but now its a single point of failure.
If wire guard is just bettr then I don't see any reason to suport OpenVPN anyway.
Legacy devices with OpenVPN support only.
i can't get wire guard to work on my home network so it is not better for me
edit: to be fair my internet connection is being tapped and recorded by law enforcement so i am assuming that is the problem.
How are you trying to using WG? I had issues with wg quick up or whatever it is, not bothered to check, but adding wireguard connections as NetworkManager interfaces works flawlessly for me.
Is that with any vpn provider? or hosting your own? And that is kind of a shame I guess you just won't be able to use Mullvad vpn, good thing there are heaps of other options.
only hear about protonvpn
heap?
I can't get WG to work in Qubes. OpenVPN just works
That's kind of weird, because the reason why I never bothered with (selfhosted) VPNs before Wireguard was because it was the first one that just worked. Granted, due to its nature, you don't get a lot of feedback when things don't work, but it's so simple in principle that there's not a lot that can go wrong. For external VPNs like this, it should just be: Load config, double-check, done.
Now do it on an obscure router firmware
any good wireguard documenation? only found few random company blog, some stackoverflow and reddit.
Why tho?
Are they going to fix their client so it can work on linux with software like portmaster that controls DNS?
https://github.com/safing/portmaster/issues/445
https://wiki.safing.io/en/Portmaster/App/Compatibility/Software/MullvadVPN
I doubt it. Portmaster has a relatively small share of users, and I bet it would be a waste of their resources to try to pin down a bug that is outside the scope of their client's normal functionality.
Best option is to try to fix it yourself and submit a pull request or hope somebody else does it.
Thank you for the tip. It is not necessarily a bug is my understating is that mullvad controls DNS for pirvacy/security issue. So it makes sense from mass market perspective. So this would be more of a feature request.
Never thought of trying to do myseld. I am not an IT guy but FAFO always been my MO lol
view more: next ›