WireGuard 1.0.0 Christened As A Modern Secure VPN Alternative To OpenVPN/IPsec

[phoronix]

Phoronix: WireGuard 1.0.0 Christened As A Modern Secure VPN Alternative To OpenVPN/IPsec

In-step with the Linux 5.6 release that mainlined the WireGuard kernel module for this secure VPN tunnel, WireGuard 1.0.0 has now been declared...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=WireGuard-1.0.0-Released

[tildearrow]

WireGuard 1.0?! Wow, finally, after a long 0.0 alpha!

Congrats Jason on the efforts o-o

[oibaf]

Congrats indeed!

To be considered as an enterprise VPN it now just need a user provisioning system (a web interface that let's you manage all your thousand users, similar to OpenVPN AS), so also enterprises can start using it, replacing aging IPSec and OpenVPN installations.

[Hibbelharry]

To be considered as an enterprise VPN it now just need a user provisioning system (a web interface that let's you manage all your thousand users, similar to OpenVPN AS), so also enterprises can start using it, replacing aging IPSec and OpenVPN installations.

Not really. Sure, you need to be able to manage quantities of users, but you don't need it to have a UI itself. If users can be provisioned via LDAP or use Kerberos to authenticate other existing services to manage users that will cope well.

[Jabberwocky]

Congratulations! Your years of hard work and support from anyone who contributed will assist people around the world.

[oibaf]

Not really. Sure, you need to be able to manage quantities of users, but you don't need it to have a UI itself. If users can be provisioned via LDAP or use Kerberos to authenticate other existing services to manage users that will cope well.

Last time I had a look it was still not possible to authenticate via LDAP/RADIUS with Wireguard. This is the first point.
The second one is ease of use for the end users. They should be able to install the VPN with a few clicks, even if they have no computer experience.
They are both addressed with other VPN services (I am myself using OpenVPN AS), bust still missing with Wireguard.
Once this is addressed with Wireguard, enterprises could deploy it.
I know there is this plan, but it's still a TODO:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...R_uCtEZG4/edit

[ALRBP]

For me, what WireGuard lacks is the ability to use 443/TCP port, which can be required to bypass some firewalls, and port-sharing with a http server. Or maybe I'm wrong and there is a way to do it with WireGuard (some people also talked about tap instead of tun)

[zamadatix]

For me, what WireGuard lacks is the ability to use 443/TCP port, which can be required to bypass some firewalls, and port-sharing with a http server. Or maybe I'm wrong and there is a way to do it with WireGuard (some people also talked about tap instead of tun)

Something like udp2raw may fit your use case. It's not one of WireGuard's goals to provide these workarounds natively it simply aims to provide a secure and minimal VPN implementation.

[ALRBP]

Something like udp2raw may fit your use case. It's not one of WireGuard's goals to provide these workarounds natively it simply aims to provide a secure and minimal VPN implementation.

Great. My next personal VPN may be Wireguard then

[birdie]

VPN providers which support WireGuard: https://greycoder.com/a-list-of-wire...-vpns-in-2019/ I haven't tested any - since I'm extremely lazy I will wait until NetworkManager supports it natively in GUI. Right now it's all a bit tedious and requires using the console: https://blogs.gnome.org/thaller/2019...etworkmanager/