Development discussion of WireGuard
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: em12345 <em12345@web.de>
To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com
Subject: Re: Reflections on WireGuard Design Goals
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:15:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1635651d-7119-8ffb-a829-617dc9b9bb0d@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b66a15d1-c4f1-78a5-cf5a-4d2a4ca9ce54@pobox.com>

Hi,

> From my point of view, the only thing which makes me uncomfortable about
> wireguard is the lack of any second authentication factor. Your private
> key is embedded in a plaintext file in your device (e.g. laptop), not
> even protected with a passphrase.

Most VPN authentications are just authorizing the machine and not the
user sitting in front of that machine.

> Anyone who gains access to that
> laptop is able to establish wireguard connections.
>
> Of course, it can be argued that the laptop holds other information
> which is more valuable that the wireguard key, therefore you should
> concentrate on properly securing the laptop itself (*). Furthermore,

No matter how much keys, passwords or tokens have to be entered by the
user sitting in front of that machine, any other user already on that
machine, will gain sooner or later access to the tunnel. This user or
attacker doesn't even need to see/know wireguard's private key nor does
the attacker need root access. Think of a second user logged in on that
machine.

It is definitely a bad idea to assume that the tunnel traffic of one
"client" (in terms of wg's client key pair) comes from a specific user.
Which also means that even multi factor VPN authentication still require
all services inside the tunnel to ask for user authentication.


Emmanuel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-08-10 20:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <mailman.1318.1533866648.2201.wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
2018-08-10 13:35 ` Brian Candler
2018-08-10 14:09   ` Matthias Urlichs
2018-08-10 14:09   ` Kalin KOZHUHAROV
2018-08-10 14:42   ` Eisfunke
2018-08-10 14:47   ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-08-10 15:03   ` Roman Mamedov
2018-08-10 16:03     ` Brian Candler
2018-08-10 16:38       ` Kalin KOZHUHAROV
2018-08-10 16:40       ` jungle Boogie
2018-08-10 17:12         ` Aaron Jones
2018-08-10 17:25           ` jungle Boogie
2018-08-10 20:15   ` em12345 [this message]
2018-08-10 23:07     ` Reuben Martin
2018-08-11 19:18   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-08-11 22:52     ` Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
2018-08-12  0:15       ` Aaron Jones
2018-08-12  0:46         ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-08-12  1:07           ` Aaron Jones
2018-08-09 21:52 Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-08-10 15:19 ` nicolas prochazka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1635651d-7119-8ffb-a829-617dc9b9bb0d@web.de \
    --to=em12345@web.de \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).