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

Wireproxy: WireGuard client that exposes itself as a HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Wireproxy: WireGuard client that exposes itself as a HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy

#61

Post by nicoco »

CyberShadow wrote: post #44
nicoco wrote: post #33

https://github.com/dariost/soks works better for what I needed to do with wireguard. It does more or less the same thing but it reuses an existing wireguard interface. I detailed my use in this blog post https://www.nicoco.fr/blog/2023/09/10/wireguard/ (yes, shameless plug).

This is very different. wireproxy seems to contain a userspace implementation of TCP and Wireguard. soks looks like an IP router than can only handle TCP, replacing routing tables as the control mechanism with something that decides to use or not use a SOCKS5 proxy.

I didn't mean to dismiss wireproxy, I was just sharing where my findings lead me when I set up wireguards tunnel for myself. Apologies if this didn't come out right.

Re: Wireproxy: WireGuard client that exposes itself as a HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy

#62

Post by nicoco »

lxgr wrote: post #49
nicoco wrote: post #33

https://github.com/dariost/soks works better for what I needed to do with wireguard. It does more or less the same thing but it reuses an existing wireguard interface. I detailed my use in this blog post https://www.nicoco.fr/blog/2023/09/10/wireguard/ (yes, shameless plug).

Out of curiosity, why does this work better for you? I used to do a similar thing using a Docker container on a Raspberry Pi, but being able to run this on any OS and with a guarantee that it won’t accidentally mess up the host’s routing table makes the user space solution a much better choice in my view.

It worked better for me because with some software (eg qbittorrent) you can directly choose the network interface to use, so having a 'standard' wg0 interface is great.

Now I also wanted to re-use this interface for some websites I visited, and the easy way to do that was to configure rules in foxyproxy to use a socks proxy for that, which is where soks come into play.

I don't doubt that wireproxy is useful to many!

Re: Wireproxy: WireGuard client that exposes itself as a HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy

#63

Post by nicoco »

soks86 wrote: post #57
nicoco wrote: post #33

https://github.com/dariost/soks works better for what I needed to do with wireguard. It does more or less the same thing but it reuses an existing wireguard interface. I detailed my use in this blog post https://www.nicoco.fr/blog/2023/09/10/wireguard/ (yes, shameless plug).

WTF is _this_

Thanks for insightful comment.

(was there a question in it?)

Re: Wireproxy: WireGuard client that exposes itself as a HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy

#64

Post by lxgr »

vfclists wrote: post #60
lxgr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No separate extension needed; it’s right there in the container settings now! Somebody has the detailed steps in a sibling comment.

Do you mean Firefox has created a version that routes container traffic through proxies without the use of the the Container proxy addon?

Yes! I believe this happened when they made containers natively compatible with “Mozilla VPN”.

They do advertise their own service, but there’s an option to use a custom proxy instead.

Re: Wireproxy: WireGuard client that exposes itself as a HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy

#67

Post by egberts1 »

tetris11 wrote: post #66
egberts1 wrote: post #65

No. Do not wrap anything around the WireGuard protocol. If you must, the very last protocol you should use is HTTP/HTTP3.

Expand?

You have a triad (much like time, money, resources) of the Internet:

1. Privacy 2. Security 3. Anonymity

Wireguard covers everything except your endpoints (anonymity).

Adding any more wrapper of a non-routing protocol will leak even more info: I can safely say this as one who creates filters for IDS/IPS/NDS/XNS.

If you want to cover the last vestige of your endpoints and not lose any more info, you would use a routing-type protocol, encrypted or not, onion-layer or not.

Post reply on HN