From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Jason@zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id b8cc9d24 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com (frisell.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id df8896a2 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 939d0e54 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id fe16bfb7 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128:NO) for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j10-v6so9000141oii.12 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:27:27 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Using WG for transport security in a p2p network To: Ximin Luo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hey Ximin, Nice to see that you're thinking through these issues in a concrete setting. For a while I had some notions about allowing WireGuard to pop up initiaton messages from unauthenticated peers to userspace for userspace to then validate in one way or another asynchornously, followed by userspace adding that peer's key to the list of peers (or not), and initiating the handshake back the other way reusing the initial UDP port. This wouldn't add that much complexity and I think it'd be fairly reliable. However, I've held off on implementing it because I'm skepical that people would actually use it in a way that makes sense. For example, in your case, you already have some other aspect of the protocol which seeks to exchange this information; in that case, doing the exchange there makes most sense, since you can morph and change that for your particular requirements. In other words, I like the idea you presented in your follow up email. Does that seem like a okay solution for you? Or do you think you do have a compelling reason for adding the above semantics? Jason