GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
1–10 of 142 posts
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#2[flagged]
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#3If anyone working on the implementation is here, was it not possible to upstream your changes to BoringTun? The blog mentions some changes but doesn't go into detail on that aspect.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#4One meta thing I've always wondered ... Are multiple implementations of the same protocol good or bad for security?
Probably naively, I'm thinking:
- diversity: good
- doubling the attack surface: real bad
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#5If anyone working on the implementation is here, was it not possible to upstream your changes to BoringTun? The blog mentions some changes but doesn't go into detail on that aspect.
I'm guessing because BoringTun has been in a state of "currently undergoing a restructuring" for something like 3 years by now, I'm guessing Mullvad wasn't too keen to maybe/maybe not be able to contribute, and much more prefer being in 100% control of their own implementation.
As someone who wants to see Wireguard succeed and in even wider use, this move makes sense from that perspective too. The more implementations we have available, the more we can trust that the protocol is secure and stable enough. Personally I also have about 100x more trust in Mullvad than Cloudflare both in terms of security but more importantly privacy, but that's just the cherry on top.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#6Nice, I love WireGuard. I ended up building WrapGuard [1] to run applications without root access to the host and choose Go to write it in. I don't really know Rust, but does it make more sense for firmware/networking type software? Is there even a difference?
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#7One meta thing I've always wondered ... Are multiple implementations of the same protocol good or bad for security? Probably naively, I'm thinking: - diversity: good - doubling the attack surface: real bad What do the security folks out there think of the topic?
That's really good because it means it will be able to have more exposure, more exposure means more improvement, more improvement eventually dig out bad bugs and reduces the attack surface in the long run
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#8One meta thing I've always wondered ... Are multiple implementations of the same protocol good or bad for security? Probably naively, I'm thinking: - diversity: good - doubling the attack surface: real bad What do the security folks out there think of the topic?
I think the general consensus is that it improves security of the protocol, but obviously that won't matter much if the implementation gets something wrong or has worse security by itself.
Issues in the protocol itself would need all implementations to change, but issues in the implementation would obviously be isolated to one implementation. For something like Wireguard, I'd wager a guess that issues in the implementations are more common than issues in the protocol, at least at this stage.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#9Nice, I love WireGuard. I ended up building WrapGuard [1] to run applications without root access to the host and choose Go to write it in. I don't really know Rust, but does it make more sense for firmware/networking type software? Is there even a difference? 1. https://github.com/puzed/wrapguard
Pick the devil you know, as they say.
Re: GotaTun – Mullvad's WireGuard Implementation in Rust
#10I wish they would improve wireguard-the-protocol as well: wireguard doesn't stand a chance against gov/isp blocks.