38 ms·

It it just me or does it sound wrong to call wireguard, the kernel module, third party software in this context? That's literally the reference implementation.

• arghwhat 8y ago
  It is wrong. Warp is the third-party implementation. It would be amazing if it could be made to work from standard wireguard, but I suppose there's a chance that if desktop versions arrive, you'll be able to extract the keys. The only thing stopping that would be if Cloudflare broke the protocol.
  • jgrahamc 8y ago
    We can argue about the terminology but from the perspective of the company other WireGuard clients (including the official ones) are 'third-party' in the sense that we don't control them. That makes supporting users of those clients more expensive for us (e.g. we currently have a mobile app for Warp, someone calls our support asking for help with a Linux client...)
    • nickysielicki 8y ago
      Not supporting a configuration is much different than actively prohibiting it. It's okay to just say, "Hey, we are running a free VPN. We're making some privacy guarantees and are trying to log as little as possible. That exposes us to being abused, which means that we have to put some limits in-place on the client." There's nothing unreasonable about that at all.
    • steve19 8y ago
      I know this is the last thing you are worried about right now, but could you at some point look into tasker integration. Its really easy to provide a tasker interface. I would love to be able to control when 1.1.1.1 connected.
      • jgrahamc 8y ago
        I'll tell the team. Thanks for the suggestion.