Warp – Mobile VPN • Hacker News Board

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#101

Post by obenn » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #93

arendtio wrote: post #85

> We built Warp around WireGuard So basically Cloudflare created an app with Cloudflare branding and set up a Wireguard server for everyone. No bad, but just check out the original: https://www.wireguard.com While I am not a big fan of VPNs in general, I have to admit, that Wireguard performs exceptionally well. I tested it a week ago and the added latency is pretty much just the network latency and the bandwidth los…

From personal experience: When coupled with an DNS based ad blocker Wireguard can actually make your internet faster than when not using it. More so on Android than iOS and more so on mobile than fixed, but still feels so much smoother. you can even only forward the DNS requests and not the rest of the data so your home upload speed won't become your bottleneck.

This is precisely my setup, and I couldn't be happier. I have a lot of internal infrastructure including pi-hole, confluence and a number of self-hosted services. WireGuard lets me go anywhere on my laptop and its like I never left home, and I just keep two configurations for when I want to forward only internal IP addresses, or all my traffic.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#102

Post by mmore » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #87

zamadatix wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that uses the Android built in IPsec VPN is going to be fine unless the app really goes out of it's way to be crappy. This uses Wireguard in userspace so is likely actually a battery drain. Less than OpenVPN at least.

While it might use more power I've been using Wireguard on my phone for 6 months or so now and the performance is way better than IPSec, especially on spotty connections such a mobile!

I wonder how the increase in performance might offset the difference in battery drain between both protocols. If wireguard uses a bit more battery to achieve a task quicker the extra idle time achieved might off-set any increase in power usage.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#103

Post by jgrahamc » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

petre wrote: post #100

jgrahamc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this statement. We haven't pushed incompatible standards or any other nonsense. We've literally pushed out the latest standards and enabled more encryption (see Universal SSL making SSL free years before Let's Encrypt; see enabling IPv6; enabling HTTP/2; etc. etc.). As for HTTP/3... so will we. See: https://blog.cloudflare.com/http-3-from-root-to-tip/ , https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-road-to-quic/ an…

What about web sites hosted on or proxied by CF with nag screens and captchas blocking my IP? I like and use 1.1.1.1 though.

We don't host web sites. What nag screens are you talking about?

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#104

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #65

ikeboy wrote: post #55

There's a lot of dissing of competition (they drain your battery, "all suck", slow down your internet) without a single datapoint. Personally I find the performance of PIA fine. I just ran a test through fast.com and got 42 mbps on 4g through PIA mobile VPN in NYC. (Weirdly, when I turn off the VPN and test I'm only getting around 2 Mbps.) Latency is a bit higher than direct, but not enough for me to agree with their…

Fast.com is through Netflix, so your carrier is probably throttling. Try a different speed test with no VPN to confirm.

Using the speed test app I get 65 direct and 58 using the NYC setting in PIA. Ping is 31 ms for PIA vs 28 direct.

I look forward to testing with Warp once it's released, but I don't see how it could be much better than the status quo. PIA has lots of servers all over the place, cloudflare might have a bigger network but the delta should be negligible.

I am a bit surprised that fast would get throttled though.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#105

Post by kreetx » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

moreentropy wrote: post #77

While this might improve user experience for some, I don't see the greater value in a VPN solution like this. It's the fast path to replacing the decentralized internet with a few proprietary CDNs. I'm much more excited about those projects that actually try to fix the raised issues: Unencrypted connections -> TLS / Letsencrypt TCP sucks on mobile/roaming devices -> QUIC & HTTP/3

Should Cloudflare go evil in some way then I would guess other services would pick up the ball and would keep delivering the same level of service as this one.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#106

Post by gpm » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #97

gpm wrote: post #27

I currently use DNS66 for ad blocking on android without root. Is there a way to do something similar while using this app? Alternatively, I have a Xperia XA1 running a June 5, 2017 security patch. It's been my intent for a long time now to figure out how to get root without unlocking the boot loader the sony approved way (which makes the camera less functional). Anyone have any pointers on easy to exploit privilege…

You are worried about unlocking bootloader (which you should) for rooting or system less mod, but okay for an exploit operating from user space?

Yes, basically.

Could also approach from usb/wifi/bluetooth/etc instead of local userspace.

The problem specifically is that unlocking the bootloader the official way deletes drm keys stored in a "TA" partition, and that makes the camera less functional. It would be sufficient to find a vulnerability that let me back up the DRM keys - but that seems unlikely without gaining root access and I'd have more confidence that I backed up the right thing with root access.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#107

Post by newaccoutnas » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

maltalex wrote: post #98

arendtio wrote: post #85

> We built Warp around WireGuard So basically Cloudflare created an app with Cloudflare branding and set up a Wireguard server for everyone. No bad, but just check out the original: https://www.wireguard.com While I am not a big fan of VPNs in general, I have to admit, that Wireguard performs exceptionally well. I tested it a week ago and the added latency is pretty much just the network latency and the bandwidth los…

> What I found most interesting, was that there were some use-cases when the network with Wireguard performed even better than without it (probably related to congestion control). It could be the different routing. Your ISP's routing might be sub-optimal to certain destinations. After all, it chooses routes based (at least in part) on cost, not performance. There are commercial products that do this sort of tunneling…

Could also be packet-shaping/QoS on the ISP side

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#108

Post by jgrahamc » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

gok wrote: post #70

This sounds super cool. Any chance more of the client will be open sourced? (I presume this uses the recently-released Rust WireGuard core?)

Not right now. The burden of supporting that as open source would be too high.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#109

Post by packet_nerd » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

moreentropy wrote: post #77

While this might improve user experience for some, I don't see the greater value in a VPN solution like this. It's the fast path to replacing the decentralized internet with a few proprietary CDNs. I'm much more excited about those projects that actually try to fix the raised issues: Unencrypted connections -> TLS / Letsencrypt TCP sucks on mobile/roaming devices -> QUIC & HTTP/3

Having Cloudflare's weight behind Wireguard seems like a great thing for an open decentralized Internet.

Re: Warp – Mobile VPN

#110

Post by arendtio » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

maltalex wrote: post #98

arendtio wrote: post #85

> We built Warp around WireGuard So basically Cloudflare created an app with Cloudflare branding and set up a Wireguard server for everyone. No bad, but just check out the original: https://www.wireguard.com While I am not a big fan of VPNs in general, I have to admit, that Wireguard performs exceptionally well. I tested it a week ago and the added latency is pretty much just the network latency and the bandwidth los…

> What I found most interesting, was that there were some use-cases when the network with Wireguard performed even better than without it (probably related to congestion control). It could be the different routing. Your ISP's routing might be sub-optimal to certain destinations. After all, it chooses routes based (at least in part) on cost, not performance. There are commercial products that do this sort of tunneling…

Possible but I am not exactly sure what caused the difference. I used fast.com for testing and when I increased the number of parallel connections the performance degradation was lower when using Wireguard. I assumed that it is related to congestion control as Wireguard uses UDP AFAIK and otherwise I would use TCP on the bottleneck part of the connection.