From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3F4C63777 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F0520725 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:38:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E5F0520725 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bestov.io Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 499d2435; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 86361f65 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:31:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Originating-IP: 79.52.27.94 Received: from localhost (host-79-52-27-94.retail.telecomitalia.it [79.52.27.94]) (Authenticated sender: pbl@bestov.io) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6698560005; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:38:06 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "WireGuard mailing list" Subject: Re: Using WireGuard on Windows as non-admin - proper solution? From: "Riccardo Paolo Bestetti" To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , "Phillip McMahon" Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:34:43 +0100 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On Sun Nov 29, 2020 at 9:59 PM CET, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Alright. Well, if you do think of good reasons why NCO is not a good > match for unpriv'd WireGuard control, please let me know. The whole > basis of going that route is the apparent intuition that these two > types of things, network modification and tunnel up/down, are one and > the same. But if you have in mind a way where the analogy breaks down, I had actually never thought about this specifically before this discussion, but after deploying v0.3 I realized that network modification and tunnel up/down are /not/ one and the same! It makes sense that an employee, or even I when running as a non-admin, would be able to up/down interfaces; but not create, modify or delete them. It's the same with software: a standard user cannot install it or uninstall it, but [s]he can use it. I think this model really works well. I'm happy with it. Riccardo