3 ms·

> (d) As a result of all of this, it is very fast. No, it's very fast because the ChaCha/Salsa20 stream cipher uses common CPU instructions and runs fast in pu

> (d) As a result of all of this, it is very fast. No, it's very fast because the ChaCha/Salsa20 stream cipher uses common CPU instructions and runs fast in purely software, whereas AES requires things like S-Box computations which is slow in software but fast when implemented as accelerated instructions in hardware. There are IPSEC software stacks using AES acceleration that runs just as fast, not to mention IPSEC hardware offload. OpenVPN is slow due to architectural constraints, but IPSEC doesn't suffer from that at all. IPSEC tunnels with PSK is also absurdly easy to configure, either on Linux, or a router, what it doesn't offer is native NAT traversal.

tptacek 5y ago
You are the first person who has ever told me that IPSEC was absurdly easy to configure. Share a configuration that illustrates the point?
- herio 5y ago
  What is commonly called IPsec is actually two separate protocols, IPSec itself and ISAKMP/IKE for key management. IPSec is somewhat similar to how wireguard work actually, it relies on IPs and static encryption keys. Not too hard to configured, see for example the manual keying documentation of slackware: https://book.huihoo.com/slackware-linux-basics/html/ipsec.html#AEN3788 https://book.huihoo.com/slackware-linux-basics/html/ipsec.ht... ISAKMP/IKE is then used on top to manage the IPsec keys and parameters. This is where a lot of the complexity comes in, tons of parameters, modes, etc. etc. So if all you want is to secure communication between two IPs and can securely exchange key material out of bands, manually keyed IPsec is not very complicated.
  - psanford 5y ago
    IPSEC without IKE is not "similar to how wireguard works actually." Wireguard does actual key exchange and has security properties such as Forward Secrecy that you don't get using a hardcoded IPSEC symmetric key. Also, even the IPSEC config without IKE is way more complicated than a Wireguard config, with seriously sharp edges. Just look at that config you linked to. No one should ever need to know what AH and ESP are, but if you don't you very easily can configure IPSEC in an insecure manner.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Is that your absurdly simple configuration? Can I assume the contents of that web page are where you rest your case on WireGuard's `wg.conf` vs. IPsec?

tptacek 5y ago

You are the first person who has ever told me that IPSEC was absurdly easy to configure. Share a configuration that illustrates the point?

herio 5y ago
What is commonly called IPsec is actually two separate protocols, IPSec itself and ISAKMP/IKE for key management. IPSec is somewhat similar to how wireguard work actually, it relies on IPs and static encryption keys. Not too hard to configured, see for example the manual keying documentation of slackware: https://book.huihoo.com/slackware-linux-basics/html/ipsec.html#AEN3788 https://book.huihoo.com/slackware-linux-basics/html/ipsec.ht... ISAKMP/IKE is then used on top to manage the IPsec keys and parameters. This is where a lot of the complexity comes in, tons of parameters, modes, etc. etc. So if all you want is to secure communication between two IPs and can securely exchange key material out of bands, manually keyed IPsec is not very complicated.
- psanford 5y ago
  IPSEC without IKE is not "similar to how wireguard works actually." Wireguard does actual key exchange and has security properties such as Forward Secrecy that you don't get using a hardcoded IPSEC symmetric key. Also, even the IPSEC config without IKE is way more complicated than a Wireguard config, with seriously sharp edges. Just look at that config you linked to. No one should ever need to know what AH and ESP are, but if you don't you very easily can configure IPSEC in an insecure manner.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Is that your absurdly simple configuration? Can I assume the contents of that web page are where you rest your case on WireGuard's `wg.conf` vs. IPsec?