On 09/10/2018 11:00, wireguard-requ...@lists.zx2c4.com wrote:
In fact :
[nicolas@linux wireguard-go-0.0.20180613]$ printf 'package main\nconst
UseTheKernelModuleInstead = 0xdeadbabe\n' > ireallywantobuildon_linux.go
[nicolas@linux wireguard-go-0.0.20180613]$ make
Makefile:7: *** Do not build thi
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
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 u
On 28/09/2018 11:00, wireguard-requ...@lists.zx2c4.com wrote:
Failed to send data packet write udp6
[::]:49896->[2607:7700:0:8::48ca:860f]:51820
This is interesting because the DNS name my client interface is pointed at does
not have a record.
But does it have IPv4 address 72.202.134.15
Domain fronting seems like the stealthiest option to me (and if anyone has a
reliable way to
detect domain fronting, I would love to hear about it!). But that doesn?t get
you UDP (and NAT
traversal); perhaps VOIP/WebRTC mimicry could work?
I think this is a game you can't win against a suitabl
I'm setting up an WireGuard tunnel between my VPS and my home network. This
tunnel should be IPv6 only.
I assigned the IPv6 subnet fd00:1:a/64 to my home network and my wireguard
client got the static IP fd00:1:a::1.
On the VPS I assigned the IP fd00::1 to the wg0 interface.
Here're the configs:
On 10/08/2018 16:03, Roman Mamedov wrote:
But I'd feel a lot happier if a second level of authentication were
required to establish a wireguard connection, if no packets had been
flowing for more than a configurable amount of time - say, an hour. It
would give some comfort around lost/stolen devi
For whatever reason, in the last several weeks, WireGuard been receiving a
considerable amount of attention, and with that comes various parties
interested in the project moving in this direction or in that direction. And
more generally, over the last year or so, we've seen a decent amount of
inte
ndom bs=1024 count=100" and it did send the
whole random splurge without locking up the TCP connection.
I also wonder if wireguard could automatically reduce its MTU in
response to ICMP "frag needed" packets, at least down to a c
nk the answer is straightforward: I would like this rule to be
added when the target IP is within any AllowedIPs subnet, not just for
0.0.0.0/0. Would you agree?
If I add this route manually, everything seems to work fine.
Thanks,
Brian Candler.
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
