5 ms·

Anyone used wireguard in China?

swordfeng 8y ago
I know someone do use wireguard to bypass the GFW. It's not blocked at the moment. However, a concern is that the UDP-based protocol is not hard to detect.
- dbcooper 8y ago
  Thanks. Would be nice to have an alternative to shadowsocks.
- 0xADEADBEE 8y ago
  This HN comment might be worth a look: [0] It details the steps to setup udptunnel to tunnel Wireguard traffic over TCP. Hope it helps someone! [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17847008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17847008
  - daakus 8y ago
    Anyone have experience with making this work? I tried starting it on the server I have WireGuard running on and it fails to start because it also wants to bind to the UDP port WireGuard uses (even in server mode). Additionally http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~lennox/udptunnel/ http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~lennox/udptunnel/ has a note saying: UDPTunnel is designed to tunnel RTP-style traffic, in which applications send and receive UDP packets to and from the same port (or pair of ports). It does not support request/response-style traffic, in which a client request is sent from a transient port X to a well-known port Y, and the server's response is returned from port Y to port X. Which from what I understand is exactly what WireGuard does.
NamTaf 8y ago
It's billed on Streisand's Github page [1] as working there. I'll be giving it a spin in February as an alternative to Shadowsocks and Anyconnect. Just need Wireguard on Windows now! [1]: https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand
- desdiv 8y ago
  >Just need Wireguard on Windows now! There is a third party Wireguard implementation for Windows: https://tunsafe.com/ https://tunsafe.com/ However the Wireguard creator has some reservations about this third party client: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16515662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16515662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17730012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17730012
  - gsich 8y ago
    Mostly FUD. >We'll have an official Windows client coming out shortly >9 months ago >For those who are after Windows clients, the WireGuard project will hopefully have one quite soon, >4 months ago This is the problem.
    - e12e 8y ago
      See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18724089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18724089
    - aargh_aargh 8y ago
      Another well-known problem is expecting people you're not paying to give you something extra after they've already given you great software gratis under a free software license. Apologies if you're a paying supporter, but then you would already know what to expect and when. https://www.patreon.com/zx2c4 https://www.patreon.com/zx2c4 I'm personally happy to wait for the quality official client with upstream support (even though I gave a try to TunSafe without expectation to use it in the long term).
      - gsich 8y ago
        My concern is zx2c4's attitude. Especially towards TunSafe and the author. He claimed that there are interoperability and security issues, only because it was closed-source, firstly. No proof was given though. Then it became open source, haven't seen any claims of security/interoperability. An independent implementation of Wireguard is a good thing, but zx2c4 apparently doesn't want that. I can't explain the zealous fight against it otherwise. TunSafe's author Ludde also made µtorrent which he so often says. But depending on the version you have it's either good or infested with adware. Although the later one is not his fault anymore, I still wouldn't mention it without the version number that was still good.
hazz99 8y ago
I used wireguard with a personal VPN [0] set up on DO. Worked great, although I occasionally had to tear down & set up a new server when it was detected. [0] github.com/trailofbits/algo
- IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
  Detected by who? DO? Do they not allow creating a VPN server?
  - hazz99 8y ago
    No, by the Chinese govt. who'd process to block my VPN or make it unbearably slow

I know someone do use wireguard to bypass the GFW. It's not blocked at the moment. However, a concern is that the UDP-based protocol is not hard to detect.

dbcooper 8y ago
Thanks. Would be nice to have an alternative to shadowsocks.
0xADEADBEE 8y ago
This HN comment might be worth a look: [0] It details the steps to setup udptunnel to tunnel Wireguard traffic over TCP. Hope it helps someone! [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17847008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17847008
- daakus 8y ago
  Anyone have experience with making this work? I tried starting it on the server I have WireGuard running on and it fails to start because it also wants to bind to the UDP port WireGuard uses (even in server mode). Additionally http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~lennox/udptunnel/ http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~lennox/udptunnel/ has a note saying: UDPTunnel is designed to tunnel RTP-style traffic, in which applications send and receive UDP packets to and from the same port (or pair of ports). It does not support request/response-style traffic, in which a client request is sent from a transient port X to a well-known port Y, and the server's response is returned from port Y to port X. Which from what I understand is exactly what WireGuard does.

NamTaf 8y ago

It's billed on Streisand's Github page [1] as working there. I'll be giving it a spin in February as an alternative to Shadowsocks and Anyconnect. Just need Wireguard on Windows now! [1]: https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand

desdiv 8y ago
>Just need Wireguard on Windows now! There is a third party Wireguard implementation for Windows: https://tunsafe.com/ https://tunsafe.com/ However the Wireguard creator has some reservations about this third party client: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16515662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16515662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17730012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17730012
- gsich 8y ago
  Mostly FUD. >We'll have an official Windows client coming out shortly >9 months ago >For those who are after Windows clients, the WireGuard project will hopefully have one quite soon, >4 months ago This is the problem.
  - e12e 8y ago
    See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18724089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18724089
  - aargh_aargh 8y ago
    Another well-known problem is expecting people you're not paying to give you something extra after they've already given you great software gratis under a free software license. Apologies if you're a paying supporter, but then you would already know what to expect and when. https://www.patreon.com/zx2c4 https://www.patreon.com/zx2c4 I'm personally happy to wait for the quality official client with upstream support (even though I gave a try to TunSafe without expectation to use it in the long term).
    - gsich 8y ago
      My concern is zx2c4's attitude. Especially towards TunSafe and the author. He claimed that there are interoperability and security issues, only because it was closed-source, firstly. No proof was given though. Then it became open source, haven't seen any claims of security/interoperability. An independent implementation of Wireguard is a good thing, but zx2c4 apparently doesn't want that. I can't explain the zealous fight against it otherwise. TunSafe's author Ludde also made µtorrent which he so often says. But depending on the version you have it's either good or infested with adware. Although the later one is not his fault anymore, I still wouldn't mention it without the version number that was still good.

hazz99 8y ago

I used wireguard with a personal VPN [0] set up on DO. Worked great, although I occasionally had to tear down & set up a new server when it was detected. [0] github.com/trailofbits/algo

IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
Detected by who? DO? Do they not allow creating a VPN server?
- hazz99 8y ago
  No, by the Chinese govt. who'd process to block my VPN or make it unbearably slow