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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FCFC433EF for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (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 5264860F24 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:04:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 5264860F24 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mullvad.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.zx2c4.com Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 4696ff2a; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 2a6c1096 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id r43-20020a05683044ab00b0054716b40005so16459629otv.4 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 01:17:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mullvad.net; s=july2021; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xrv3ms02beMIZjz5OAGMfWxenjNrlfrWApwPB2T0wnw=; b=Q6+V9SAHtdIHHdMx1nsqPDAUxU+ACQDuoHDJB6mbUyxeEWK9/S1c6xudrLB+3qj30E nXTtuTE34eOy4SgilObZdzteMgj6cyPWy6X6I1lKj+F9rzAtDGfVF97Smo0UIhZz8PT8 t+PbzW5HGCIGUp/py9pTuw87IAG5o/W8FeocOOv4CenSfP0a65U3z2Abs0ZP3h0RM0Kp fhue7DRxRKCN5B2vLuMJMOTcbAdWkAh+1bQcacve7OjHuLFcVN0W/25LW9wouKdSieL6 okPZhW7aCLhkmwRSteGY6PQuCaoG2UP3a1yf6WGCwLoRbWGguKUXh0ri9wMJZfqNNOOd fXoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xrv3ms02beMIZjz5OAGMfWxenjNrlfrWApwPB2T0wnw=; b=nFV1mFPALVeGW+w02JZ9hhJWcT7tbgbt2BdPvgBtJsApnmN65ZxRtnu9FTMBKg0NCA xuICQWv93UwLZKALNhBm8xExPzWd3cBwYJ0z5DCZrJfrcZoFfp8W9mi3/7pmrpdHCYXn 9879nAmCNQIfvbQIqm/FJYtTJuL5WWVAaMZ5vP1vDP5Jik3S4j7FHm+NO7RNVFJOvEty 1olCN725MoxjPA1TJY1P3/3A6GX6oGzDKHMnpm+nBcrfeZXS06HMKb9fXop3U8Xft4WN xtxeGcgoOQ6+JKlM/NYMcuZ54cVlnSFf5RHCVAMXLYTux26uri+5fXT+R0t7m7T1auCR dqdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323frI9Gs9vIiGawzdYZtKGUU8gNaAISiR5Bz7P/NJn+JCWGlSy j7klqdYTa7SecUPKrcVnjB/2NHmC7E15d3XpuD5AdY6xdqfAfA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNpcPsXfIQ0Y+FjqjmP/5b3Jq/Iy+so7OYdg0PL2sH3NNhCtbqbY3AWz/xHS6tPUzpSUPYMr0lHmsDfHaVG7Q= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6359:: with SMTP id y25mr15887202otk.274.1632730674143; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 01:17:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <877df2d5px.fsf@ungleich.ch> <20210927071130.GA13681@wolff.to> <87y27ibgjp.fsf@ungleich.ch> In-Reply-To: <87y27ibgjp.fsf@ungleich.ch> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fredrik_Str=C3=B6mberg?= Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:17:42 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WireGuard with obfuscation support To: WireGuard mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:04:43 +0000 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" Hi everyone, On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:55 AM Nico Schottelius wrote: > Bruno Wolff III writes: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:53:08 +0900, > > Nico Schottelius wrote: > > > > The problem is mostly orthogonal to Wireguard. There isn't going to be > > a one size fits all solution for hiding traffic. Exactly. And it would be a big mistake to attempt to merge obfuscation support into WireGuard itself. Tor's approach of pluggable transports is probably the right one. https://www.wireguard.com/known-limitations/ "WireGuard does not focus on obfuscation. Obfuscation, rather, should happen at a layer above WireGuard, with WireGuard focused on providing solid crypto with a simple implementation. It is quite possible to plug in various forms of obfuscation, however." Here are my arguments: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-September/003292.html Cheers, Fredrik Stromberg