Hi Henrique, Thanks for posting this.
Please stay away from this software, and generally be wary of closed-source WireGuard implementations trying to fill the void. This one was written by a community-unfriendly proprietary author, and we've got little way of ensuring protocol compliance or basic security. Especially from my discussions from him, it's clear what he's up to, and this seems like some nastiness. Should I spend my time reverse engineering this software and discovering zero-days? Probably not a good use of my time, despite my usual love of this sort of thing. One aspect of the WireGuard project is that we're taking development very carefully and slowly, not jumping to premature releases, and really studying every bit of what we produce in order to ship the least-vulnerable and most-correct code we possibly can. We're still shipping code -- it's not an approach that results in a complete standstill -- but it does mean that in these intervening periods, there will be propheteers and cowboys coming out of the woodwork to fill the void. It's quite easy to make a tiny tunneling protocol that's reasonably fast and does a few things; if you look on Github there are hundreds. It's quite another thing to write robust and secure software intend to last for a long time. That's what we're working on here. Fortunately we have two very nice projects that are rapidly approaching maturity: one in Go and one in Rust. I fully welcome future OSS authors into the project. When I'm back from visiting family at the beginning of April, I think we'll be in a good place to have a few first releases. I'll also do what I can to see that people aren't peddling junk and calling it wireguard, so as to reduce user confusion, but this of course isn't a very easy endeavor. I'm open to suggestions on how to approach this. Regards, Jason _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
