3 ms·

As I mentioned in the mailing list post, the Microsoft paperwork shuffling matter got dealt with rather quickly, following all the attention the HN thread from

by zx2c4 6mo ago

As I mentioned in the mailing list post, the Microsoft paperwork shuffling matter got dealt with rather quickly, following all the attention the HN thread from the other day got. And now we're finally out with an update! NT programming is a lot of fun, though this release was quite challenging, because of all of the toolchain updates. On the plus side, we got to remove pre-Win10 support -- https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2026-March/009541.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2026-March/00954... . But did you know that Microsoft removed support for compiling x86 drivers in their latest driver SDK? So that was interesting to work around. There was also a fun change to the Go runtime included in this release: https://github.com/golang/go/commit/341b5e2c0261cc059b157f1c7a2a2c4d1f417f0d https://github.com/golang/go/commit/341b5e2c0261cc059b157f1c... All and all, a fun release, and I'm happy to have the Windows release train cooking again.

BLKNSLVR 6mo ago
Off topic: Thanks for wireguard. It is a truly great piece of software.
sammy2255 6mo ago
Good to know everything was resolved, but did you ever find out why your signing account was suspended? That's not something you brush off as haha silly Microsoft..
- Xunjin 6mo ago
  They should definitely put up a statement addressing it. Moreover what they plan in the future to avoid such traumatic event, this is not a “simple sign program”, this touches fundamental parts of the OS.
- Leherenn 6mo ago
  Apparently it's quite widespread, so I would assume a bug on their side. That's what support seemed to imply at least. We're still blocked at my company for one month+ now.
  - PeterStuer 6mo ago
    "so I would assume a bug on their side" Why a "bug".
    - alekratz 6mo ago
      For something like this, I would generalize a "bug" to encompass both software and human processes. Some decision-maker saw some metrics consistent with spam and enacted a spam-blocking measure. Any decision like this is going to lead to false positives. Maybe they decided "I don't need to confer with anyone", or maybe they did and got the green light even after multiple eyeballs looked at it. I'm not saying that this does any good for Microsoft's already-sullied trust, but mistakes happen and combating spam is a constantly evolving arms race. There's no way any organization is going to get it 100% of the time even after decades of dealing with it.
      - simonjgreen 6mo ago
        Absolutely agree. Don’t automatically attribute to malice what can also be explained by incompetence
    - Leherenn 6mo ago
      I doubt someone manually went and flagged all the accounts as invalid suddenly or whatever and that was their goal. By a bug I mean some kind of automated action that did not produce the expected outcome. Also because, at least on our side, the account was in an inconsistent state: we were correctly enrolled/validated, but could not access the signing interface.
  - fhn 6mo ago
    With Microsoft, I assume malice AND negligence first. The hostility they've shown toward their own users tells you everything you need to know.
- SturgeonsLaw 6mo ago
  Microsoft are saying it's because those accounts didn't undergo verification for the Windows Hardware Program https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/09/microsoft_dev_account_deactivations/ https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/09/microsoft_dev_account...
  - walrus01 6mo ago
    I understand it's because it's a device driver, but why should a pure software publisher which has no hardware product of any sort be required to go through a "hardware program" gatekeeper of what binaries a person can choose to install and run on their own computer?
    - rstupek 6mo ago
      They started it because the drivers people used to use from hardware vendors would routinely blue screen windows, which made MS look like the reason windows would crash. Hardware vendors are notoriously inept at software.
      - VertanaNinjai 6mo ago
        Í think their point was that Wireguard has no physical hardware, so it’s strange as a software project they’d be forced to go through verification for a hardware program.
        nine_k 6mo ago
        Because it's a kernel driver anyway?
        anakaine 6mo ago
        Then the program should have been named the kernel level driver verification program.
        6mo ago
- mavhc 6mo ago
  https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardware-dev-center/action-required-account-verification-for-windows-hardware-program-begins-october/4455452 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardware-dev-center...
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
unquietwiki 6mo ago
Hey there, thank you for pushing this out. I saw there's a 0.6.1 update now, that also reboots the machine after updating. I don't remember if it said it'd do said reboot...
- pseudohadamard 6mo ago
  Just updated and it didn't reboot, just displayed an error-looking alert that the manager was already running.
e12e 6mo ago
Somewhat on the side - but is there a wireguard that works well for ReactOS? Does the windows version just work fine? Just curious how/if the version support might work out for ReactOS.
- zx2c4 6mo ago
  Good question! I've never tried. The NT driver makes use of some of the more advanced features of the networking stack, so possibly not. But you never know. I'd love a Wg4React.
  - EvanAnderson 6mo ago
    ReactOS was, at one time, targeting a Windows Server 2003-level of compatibility. With that in mind I can't imagine current Wireguard would have even a shred of hope of working on ReactOS.
EvanAnderson 6mo ago
I really appreciate what you wrote in that post re: dropping support for pre-Windows 10 operating systems.
- rkagerer 6mo ago
  I'd like to snag that latest previous version which still has compatibility with older OS's, anyone have a reliable link handy? (I couldn't quickly find a "Previous Versions" list on their website)
  - chenxiaolong 6mo ago
    It looks like all the old files are still hosted on the server. You can just replace the version number in the download links with one of the tags from https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-windows https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-windows.
politelemon 6mo ago
Your work is always appreciated.
worble 6mo ago
> following all the attention the HN thread from the other day got That's great for you, and no offense, but what about developers who can't get buzz in a HN thread? Are they just doomed? Why is support only available to those who can raise a ruckus on social media?
walrus01 6mo ago
The broader general problem is that it should not be necessary to attempt amplification of a message via HN or X or other platforms to get a company to have a real human pay attention to something, and write a hand crafted response. This seems to increasingly be the norm with people who have had their accounts locked, deleted or restricted by automated systems. You have to hope that you can write a message and get it amplified via some sort of platform read by hundreds of thousands of people, and get people to reshare your message, in order to get any form of traction. If you're not somebody well known, noteworthy or somehow significant in a community your likelihood of having your message successfully amplified is much lower.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

by zx2c4 6mo ago

BLKNSLVR 6mo ago

Off topic: Thanks for wireguard. It is a truly great piece of software.

sammy2255 6mo ago

Good to know everything was resolved, but did you ever find out why your signing account was suspended? That's not something you brush off as haha silly Microsoft..

Xunjin 6mo ago
They should definitely put up a statement addressing it. Moreover what they plan in the future to avoid such traumatic event, this is not a “simple sign program”, this touches fundamental parts of the OS.
Leherenn 6mo ago
Apparently it's quite widespread, so I would assume a bug on their side. That's what support seemed to imply at least. We're still blocked at my company for one month+ now.
- PeterStuer 6mo ago
  "so I would assume a bug on their side" Why a "bug".
  - alekratz 6mo ago
    For something like this, I would generalize a "bug" to encompass both software and human processes. Some decision-maker saw some metrics consistent with spam and enacted a spam-blocking measure. Any decision like this is going to lead to false positives. Maybe they decided "I don't need to confer with anyone", or maybe they did and got the green light even after multiple eyeballs looked at it. I'm not saying that this does any good for Microsoft's already-sullied trust, but mistakes happen and combating spam is a constantly evolving arms race. There's no way any organization is going to get it 100% of the time even after decades of dealing with it.
    - simonjgreen 6mo ago
      Absolutely agree. Don’t automatically attribute to malice what can also be explained by incompetence
  - Leherenn 6mo ago
    I doubt someone manually went and flagged all the accounts as invalid suddenly or whatever and that was their goal. By a bug I mean some kind of automated action that did not produce the expected outcome. Also because, at least on our side, the account was in an inconsistent state: we were correctly enrolled/validated, but could not access the signing interface.
- fhn 6mo ago
  With Microsoft, I assume malice AND negligence first. The hostility they've shown toward their own users tells you everything you need to know.
SturgeonsLaw 6mo ago
Microsoft are saying it's because those accounts didn't undergo verification for the Windows Hardware Program https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/09/microsoft_dev_account_deactivations/ https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/09/microsoft_dev_account...
- walrus01 6mo ago
  I understand it's because it's a device driver, but why should a pure software publisher which has no hardware product of any sort be required to go through a "hardware program" gatekeeper of what binaries a person can choose to install and run on their own computer?
  - rstupek 6mo ago
    They started it because the drivers people used to use from hardware vendors would routinely blue screen windows, which made MS look like the reason windows would crash. Hardware vendors are notoriously inept at software.
    - VertanaNinjai 6mo ago
      Í think their point was that Wireguard has no physical hardware, so it’s strange as a software project they’d be forced to go through verification for a hardware program.
      - nine_k 6mo ago
        Because it's a kernel driver anyway?
        anakaine 6mo ago
        Then the program should have been named the kernel level driver verification program.
        6mo ago
mavhc 6mo ago
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardware-dev-center/action-required-account-verification-for-windows-hardware-program-begins-october/4455452 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardware-dev-center...

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

unquietwiki 6mo ago

Hey there, thank you for pushing this out. I saw there's a 0.6.1 update now, that also reboots the machine after updating. I don't remember if it said it'd do said reboot...

pseudohadamard 6mo ago
Just updated and it didn't reboot, just displayed an error-looking alert that the manager was already running.

e12e 6mo ago

Somewhat on the side - but is there a wireguard that works well for ReactOS? Does the windows version just work fine? Just curious how/if the version support might work out for ReactOS.

zx2c4 6mo ago
Good question! I've never tried. The NT driver makes use of some of the more advanced features of the networking stack, so possibly not. But you never know. I'd love a Wg4React.
- EvanAnderson 6mo ago
  ReactOS was, at one time, targeting a Windows Server 2003-level of compatibility. With that in mind I can't imagine current Wireguard would have even a shred of hope of working on ReactOS.

EvanAnderson 6mo ago

I really appreciate what you wrote in that post re: dropping support for pre-Windows 10 operating systems.

rkagerer 6mo ago
I'd like to snag that latest previous version which still has compatibility with older OS's, anyone have a reliable link handy? (I couldn't quickly find a "Previous Versions" list on their website)
- chenxiaolong 6mo ago
  It looks like all the old files are still hosted on the server. You can just replace the version number in the download links with one of the tags from https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-windows https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-windows.

politelemon 6mo ago

Your work is always appreciated.

worble 6mo ago

> following all the attention the HN thread from the other day got That's great for you, and no offense, but what about developers who can't get buzz in a HN thread? Are they just doomed? Why is support only available to those who can raise a ruckus on social media?

walrus01 6mo ago

The broader general problem is that it should not be necessary to attempt amplification of a message via HN or X or other platforms to get a company to have a real human pay attention to something, and write a hand crafted response. This seems to increasingly be the norm with people who have had their accounts locked, deleted or restricted by automated systems. You have to hope that you can write a message and get it amplified via some sort of platform read by hundreds of thousands of people, and get people to reshare your message, in order to get any form of traction. If you're not somebody well known, noteworthy or somehow significant in a community your likelihood of having your message successfully amplified is much lower.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]