Re: Private and public keys generation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/10/18 11:27, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I’m able to generate the private keys pretty straightforward with > any tool I like (eg: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=32 count=1 2>/dev/null | > base64) This is not sufficient, as documented on

Re: Private and public keys generation

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 9:13 AM Evgeniy Ivanov wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I’m able to generate the private keys pretty straightforward with any tool I > like (eg: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=32 count=1 2>/dev/null | base64) > > But now, I’m more curious about generating the public keys without using

Re: Fail to compile - redefinition of may_use_simd

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm working on a fix now and it should be rolled out to Android kernels shortly. ___ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Re: [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard Snapshot `0.0.20181006` Available

Thanks for the report. I'll have this fixed shortly. ___ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

Fail to compile - redefinition of may_use_simd

Hi, may_use_simd is defined in include/asm-generic/simd.h >From commit

Private and public keys generation

Hi everybody, I’m able to generate the private keys pretty straightforward with any tool I like (eg: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=32 count=1 2>/dev/null | base64) But now, I’m more curious about generating the public keys without using wg pubkey directly. Any thoughts? Thanks! -- Best Regards,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard Snapshot `0.0.20181006` Available

I started getting build errors today with the latest release. I'm building Wireguard in a 3.18.123 kernel using Clang 8.0. Here is the error, any help would be appreciated. net/built-in.o: In function `selftest_run':

Re: Sending just ssh traffic via wg

On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 11:21:01AM +0100, Brian Candler wrote: > My even more stupid question is "why use wireguard if the only thing it's > carrying is ssh?" - but I guess it's a convenient way to tunnel to a network > which doesn't have public-routed addresses. Right -- and I also don't want to

Re: Sending just ssh traffic via wg

On 06/10/2018 11:27, Roman Mamedov wrote: (Aside: I wish ssh had a feature like SNI, so that you could build an ssh proxy that forwards incoming connections to the right host.  I have done this before using an inbound SOCKS proxy, but it's messy to use) What insane things people invent only not

Re: Sending just ssh traffic via wg

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 11:21:01 +0100 Brian Candler wrote: > (Aside: I wish ssh had a feature like SNI, so that you could build an > ssh proxy that forwards incoming connections to the right host.  I have > done this before using an inbound SOCKS proxy, but it's messy to use) What insane things

Re: Sending just ssh traffic via wg

On 06/10/2018 11:00, wireguard-requ...@lists.zx2c4.com wrote: This may be a stupid question, but why do you need OpenVPN any more, if you have Wireguard? Because it's already there?:) Furthermore, some members of our IT team use macs (gasp!) and for them it would be much easier to continue to