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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 68DB7C5519F for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:30:09 +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 4FB93206E0 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="Qy49edxF" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4FB93206E0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zx2c4.com 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 d2901e0d; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.zx2c4.com (mail.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 800dbc10 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:24:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1a233e6c for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:25:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=mail; bh=EdSMgt8QCiGt+8rU7TvxiwVSk7I=; b=Qy49ed xFX9ySocyDibRoMnzYWInKfokPGyTpLItZXy3XonTxsx7JiFfHg33zBsBxh94auA gdW+L6sKjptNo2At7ijSlnx3YGZ9Ar0s7iaD7Zu4YDnOw+/JMX32Dq6tuDebz2ss rLp+CD0frhfG7dVlVik5NhL+wUKg0oNMx8ObRjz/cq6zb9rBVMKixwUx65fIUioi 6yLFVhTERPioM1CNJDVsKwzRamr5xObzz5wHT4aT3Q9qXsuYopoZMevvtyRjYyZj rF7xmPoK/XS4NnVNcvTIv3vMp65FouLJK5TmQqoHEbubb2DcHKhrwa9yG/vqI4zW pMPqCisW92miUSdg== Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id 368edbfe (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f174.google.com with SMTP id b144so3402543qkc.13 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:30:01 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530C+b3PFgcYVQ1VbO9uWGVy8GUprkPMpnSLl4b6nxMGD+klFDE5 P7RKYNIO4kgKjdT4rWJ/AUesr1n2pEXZCD7slw0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2ogo+Xx799Kh1KW3040YPr4Xe5N1ro+GdvLjqE3xxTtKoP/z53XtbmDkuoa8K6/Umm32Z/Wf+7GrLziB8Uw0= X-Received: by 2002:a25:2054:: with SMTP id g81mr3299153ybg.178.1606300201161; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:30:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:7110:2cd:b029:2f:52a5:c7b2 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:30:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:30:00 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Using WireGuard on Windows as non-admin - proper solution? To: Riccardo Paolo Bestetti Cc: WireGuard mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 11/25/20, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti wrote: > On Wed Nov 25, 2020 at 2:08 AM CET, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> Hi Riccardo, >> >> Interesting consideration. I didn't know that. > I didn't know that either until I tried to deploy WireGuard on a laptop > yesterday! It seems not to be documented anywhere. > > The group has been around since Windows XP afaik, however I have no idea > whether the associated licesing chicanery has also been around that long. > >> >> Can you not add that group manually need be? > I'm not an expert on Windows, but a quick lookup on the net suggests you > cannot create a local group with a specific SID. I'm not convinced this is the case. We're talking about a local group. Surely there's some on-disk representation of available groups and associations, no? This line of inquiry needs to be fully exhausted before we even consider alternatives. Has Microsoft documented this limitation?