3 ms·
https://github.com/dariost/soks https://github.com/dariost/soks works better for what I needed to do with wireguard. It does more or less the same thing but it
by nicoco 3y ago
https://github.com/dariost/soks https://github.com/dariost/soks works better for what I needed to do with wireguard. It does more or less the same thing but it reuses an existing wireguard interface. I detailed my use in this blog post https://www.nicoco.fr/blog/2023/09/10/wireguard/ https://www.nicoco.fr/blog/2023/09/10/wireguard/ (yes, shameless plug).
- CyberShadow 3y agoThis is very different. wireproxy seems to contain a userspace implementation of TCP and Wireguard. soks looks like an IP router than can only handle TCP, replacing routing tables as the control mechanism with something that decides to use or not use a SOCKS5 proxy.
- nicoco 3y agoI didn't mean to dismiss wireproxy, I was just sharing where my findings lead me when I set up wireguards tunnel for myself. Apologies if this didn't come out right.
- lxgr 3y agoOut of curiosity, why does this work better for you? I used to do a similar thing using a Docker container on a Raspberry Pi, but being able to run this on any OS and with a guarantee that it won’t accidentally mess up the host’s routing table makes the user space solution a much better choice in my view.
- nicoco 3y agoIt worked better for me because with some software (eg qbittorrent) you can directly choose the network interface to use, so having a 'standard' wg0 interface is great. Now I also wanted to re-use this interface for some websites I visited, and the easy way to do that was to configure rules in foxyproxy to use a socks proxy for that, which is where soks come into play. I don't doubt that wireproxy is useful to many!
- soks86 3y agoWTF is _this_
- nicoco 3y agoThanks for insightful comment. (was there a question in it?)