boringtun VS wireguard-go

I am hesitant to use this, it appears to be basically unmaintained

https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun/issues/344

https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun/issues/407

Maybe https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun or https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go ?

Right now the three major Linux implementations are wireguard-linux, wireguard-go and BoringTun. With some recent improvements to wireguard-go I decided to benchmark each one of them with ping and iPerf 3 over TCP and UDP.

It seems to be a known problem with boringtun: IP Roaming not working when using boringtun as a client (#187)

They’ve been on the Rust train since at least 2019. Just look at projects like quiche, wrangler, and boringtun

I assume since Wiresock is using BoringTun(https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun) under the hood, it works similar to other userspace implementations of wireguard, (e.g. wireguard-go, wireguard-rs) in that it uses a TUN device to deliver packets to the userspace implementation, and back out to the network. So, no driver installation required, but CAP_NET_ADMIN is required to create the TUN device.

It's using some sort of a custom installer that also downloads Cloudflare's BoringTun (https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun) directly from the author's website (nyr[.]be), since Cloudflare doesn't seem to offer it as a binary release. Example:

    { wget -qO- https://wg.nyr[.]be/1/latest/download 2>/dev/null || curl -sL https://wg.nyr.be/1/latest/download ; } | tar xz -C /usr/local/sbin/ --wildcards 'boringtun-*/boringtun' --strip-components 1

https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go

Would you accept https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go/blob/master/tun/ne... as a solution? =)

Maybe https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun or https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go ?

It's likely just `tailscale serve https / `.

https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/blob/main/ipn/serve.g...

And they also support direct embedding:

https://tailscale.dev/blog/embedded-funnel

I think this is built on the wireguard-go + gvisor mashup, that allows you to do this with just Wireguard:

https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go/tree/master/tun/ne...

One of my favorite applications of this is this little tool that turns Wireguard VPNs into SOCKS5 proxies (which you can selectively enable in your browser)

https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/octeep/wireproxy

They added this pull-request to wireguard-go and i assume they have already included it in their new version.

Vanilla WireGuard doesn't provide a way to run a peer in userspace that can proxy traffic between another peer and an endpoint such as a web server because you need to be privileged to do thinks like work with raw packets. However, https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go is a userspace implementation of WireGuard and has recently incorporated Google's userspace networking stack. This project uses these two userspace tools to "fake" a privileged WireGuard peer that proxies TCP, UDP, and (a small subset of) ICMP. It was written as a pentesting/red team utility for my team but it can also serve as a general makeshift VPN when you don't have privileges on a box you want to proxy through.

How "scratch" do you want to go from? Do you want to write your own virtual network driver, or do you want to use an existing driver like Wintun? Either way learning about Wintun would be a good start. Then there's the protocol, regardless of what language you learn, the wireguard-go implementation is a very good example of how to implement a secure protocol with modern language.

https://github.com/cloudflare/boringtun https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go

wireguard-go (the official userspace impl in golang) can do this since several months back. It uses gVisor's netstack as a tcp/udp provider to forward connections to its peer.

Here's a demonstration of both a http-client and a http-server running over wireguard (a poor man's QUIC): https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go/tree/master/tun/ne...

fly.io wrote about such setups not long ago too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26315695

And tailscale.com uses a similar setup (with netstack) on non-Linux/xBSD platforms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28261683

I think you can try wireguard-go,

> The story begins in April 2019 with 89476f8cb5 in which David Crawshaw, aware of all these problems, created an IP type like:

It's in a PR here: https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-go/pull/11/files

Which mentions:

> Typically throughout WireGuard, we've used [4]byte for v4 and [16]byte for v6, considering the Go standard library's choice of v6-mapped-v4 to be a mistake.

It actually looks useful, there's something similar in wgtypes, and I wanted to use it recently [0] but that package unfortunately doesn't expose a way to write it out to a string/buffer, so I ended up almost replicating it.

[0] https://github.com/OJFord/terraform-provider-wireguard/blob/...

(There's a lot of ways of presenting/parsing/constructing the same config options there! I'm sure if I were more fluent in Go there's some more succinct way.)