Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

lists.zx2c4.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 187 posts

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#21

Post by [deleted] »

dsr_ wrote: post #20
kzrdude wrote: post #18

What is WireGuard, is it a new protocol? Or a new algorithm for implementing an existing thing? (Or something else)

wireguard is a VPN technology that is now integrated into the Linux kernel, and is available on all major platforms. It distinguishes itself from other VPNs by not having knobs to twiddle. Should a security issue arise, it will be necessary to replace it with a wireguard2 or such. This also means that it's very hard to get it wrong in config; either it works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you haven't got it workin…

[deleted]

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#22

Post by Trufa »

dsr_ wrote: post #20
kzrdude wrote: post #18

What is WireGuard, is it a new protocol? Or a new algorithm for implementing an existing thing? (Or something else)

wireguard is a VPN technology that is now integrated into the Linux kernel, and is available on all major platforms. It distinguishes itself from other VPNs by not having knobs to twiddle. Should a security issue arise, it will be necessary to replace it with a wireguard2 or such. This also means that it's very hard to get it wrong in config; either it works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you haven't got it workin…

That sounds heavenly. I had never really thought about that immutability like concept, makes a lot of sense for security oriented software.

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#23

Post by corty »

vbezhenar wrote: post #15
yobert wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of wireguard as the plumbing. There will be a plethora of things available on top of wireguard that will enable all sorts of easy authentication options. (For example, TailScale.)

How this plumbing is expected to be implemented? For example Cloudflare Warp uses Wireguard for its VPN solution, but all key exchanges and other stuff happens via HTTPS REST calls. Is it expected for any non-trivial implementation to build a different "control" protocol? For me it sounds like a dangerous approach. While wireguard protocol will be safe and audited, those additional proprietary protocols will hinder c…

Yes, you are exactly right. Wireguard is a typical example of a thing I'd call myopic-cryptographer-protocol. Solve one problem in the minimal fashion that can be called proof-of-concept, do it in a maybe-more-secure way and call it done. Everything else, like proper key distribution and user management, which you need for a real-world deployment that isn't just a personal toy, is left as an exercise to the reader. All the readers will screw up in different ways, after which the myopic cryptographer will explain that his protocol was of course perfect and there is nothing wrong with it, you are just holding it wrong...

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#24

Post by corty »

the8472 wrote: post #16
corty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, can't. Storing a Wireguard key on a Smartcard isn't possible, because current cards do not support the key format and algorithms Wireguard uses. Only RSA and ECDSA on NIST curves are available on Smartcards. And "reading" the key from the card would make the card useless, the important feature of a smartcard is that it doesn't ever make the key available for reading. Instead, the key is used for signing or decr…

Wireguard uses perfect forward secrecy, so wouldn't signing the ephemeral session once with the hardware key do the job? Or do they need some more advanced operations that the devices don't expose?

No, you just need a signature. But an Ed25519 signature, which current commercially available smartcards just cannot do.

You could be hacking something together with a Nitrokey or maybe Yubikey, those can do Ed25519 signatures. But generally, you would need to fiddle a lot with the implementation, because currently signatures are done in the kernel module, and you'd need to get that into the USB-device for signing and back again. Not impossible, but not implemented yet.

Another way would (theoretically) be to implement different signature algorithms for the wireguard key exchange, ideally some that common smartcards do support. But wireguards author left out cryptographic agility on purpose, so any work in that direction will be incompatible with the original implementation, or at least a very ugly kludge.

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#25

Post by kook_throwaway »

corty wrote: post #23
vbezhenar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How this plumbing is expected to be implemented? For example Cloudflare Warp uses Wireguard for its VPN solution, but all key exchanges and other stuff happens via HTTPS REST calls. Is it expected for any non-trivial implementation to build a different "control" protocol? For me it sounds like a dangerous approach. While wireguard protocol will be safe and audited, those additional proprietary protocols will hinder c…

Yes, you are exactly right. Wireguard is a typical example of a thing I'd call myopic-cryptographer-protocol. Solve one problem in the minimal fashion that can be called proof-of-concept, do it in a maybe-more-secure way and call it done. Everything else, like proper key distribution and user management, which you need for a real-world deployment that isn't just a personal toy, is left as an exercise to the reader. A…

That's one way to look at it.

Another would be "Do one thing and do it well", which is Unix philosophy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#26

Post by corty »

pat2man wrote: post #12
corty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, can't. Storing a Wireguard key on a Smartcard isn't possible, because current cards do not support the key format and algorithms Wireguard uses. Only RSA and ECDSA on NIST curves are available on Smartcards. And "reading" the key from the card would make the card useless, the important feature of a smartcard is that it doesn't ever make the key available for reading. Instead, the key is used for signing or decr…

Technically if the card could sign fast enough, you could sign packets on the card.

You only need to sign the packets in the key exchange on the card. The normal payload packets are protected by symmetric algorithms based on the ephemeral symmetric key generated in the key exchange, no need (and no use) to involve the smartcard there.

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#27

Post by Denvercoder9 »

zinekeller wrote: post #6

While the driver can be licensed under GPLv2 (all kernel drivers needs to be signed by Microsoft*, and VirtIO is a precedent¤ that you can do it), I'm not sure if the header should be licensed under GPLv2, mainly because it would stifle Wireguard adoption. * In ordinary conditions. Test-sign mode does exist. ¤ ... for example, these Red Hat versions: https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=Red%2...

The header is dual-licensed under GPLv2 and MIT.

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#28

Post by drexlspivey »

nixcraft wrote: post #2

I would like to see 2FA (app or security key) support built into WireGuard. Otherwise, it is perfect as compared to the OpenVPN mess.

Adding features like this that should be implemented on a different layer is the perfect way to turn it to the OpenVPN mess

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#29

Post by wmf »

corty wrote: post #23
vbezhenar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How this plumbing is expected to be implemented? For example Cloudflare Warp uses Wireguard for its VPN solution, but all key exchanges and other stuff happens via HTTPS REST calls. Is it expected for any non-trivial implementation to build a different "control" protocol? For me it sounds like a dangerous approach. While wireguard protocol will be safe and audited, those additional proprietary protocols will hinder c…

Yes, you are exactly right. Wireguard is a typical example of a thing I'd call myopic-cryptographer-protocol. Solve one problem in the minimal fashion that can be called proof-of-concept, do it in a maybe-more-secure way and call it done. Everything else, like proper key distribution and user management, which you need for a real-world deployment that isn't just a personal toy, is left as an exercise to the reader. A…

If people want Wireguard to be a complete multiplatform audited free enterprise VPN solution they need to donate more. A lot more.

Re: WireGuardNT, a high-performance WireGuard implementation for the Windows kernel

#30

Post by Denvercoder9 »

nicoburns wrote: post #19
kzrdude wrote: post #18

What is WireGuard, is it a new protocol? Or a new algorithm for implementing an existing thing? (Or something else)

It's a VPN protocol whose USP is being dramatically simpler than OpenVPN, which should mean that it is both easier to use and more secure (and consensus seems to be that it generally delivers on both of those fronts).

> It's a VPN protocol whose USP is being dramatically simpler than OpenSSL

What? WireGuard is a VPN protocol (and implementation), while OpenSSL is an implementation of TLS. They're not competing with each other, and you can't compare them.

Post reply on HN