4 ms·

I don't think much is wasted on encryption. Most is wasted on backwards compatibility in the form of negotiating protocols, algorithm, extenstions, etc. If the

• segfaultbuserr 3y ago
  > If there would forever be only one encryption algorithm in use we we wouldn't need most of the stuff. Coincidentally, this is why a protocol like WireGuard is much simpler than OpenVPN. It's a clean-sheet design, so its developers had the luxury to design it with hardcoded modern crypto primitives without any revision or extension. Protocol negotiation is skipped entirely since it's often error-prone and suspect to attacks...
  • diarrhea 3y ago
    How will we go to newer Wireguard versions then? Throw it all away and use a wholly new product? Or have a Wireguard 2.0, where all participants need to upgrade in lockstep, with no backwards compatibility (actually sounds attractive: some churn from time to time, but none of the avoidable headaches)?
    • segfaultbuserr 3y ago
      > Or have a Wireguard 2.0, where all participants need to upgrade in lockstep, with no backwards compatibility (actually sounds attractive: some churn from time to time, but none of the avoidable headaches)? I think it's basically the plan. Even with protocol negotiation, replacing an existing crypto algorithm would be a breaking change anyway. Furthermore, it should be possible to preserve backward compatibility using a reserved field without a heavy-weight, full-fledged protocol negotiation. Entering a different code path if the message is tagged "version 2" should be enough.