41–50 of 142 posts
Its funny, this is another of the billions of reasons why Mullvad should be the VPN of choice. But so many fucking people can't ever get over that their favorite social media influencer/Youtuber is offering a code for 200% off of NordShark VPN, now with extra AI.
One 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?
ofc, thats a cynical view.
i personally think its a bad idea to duplicate efforts. better combine them. otherwise u risk making mistakes that were already solved. missing lessons already learnt.
Its funny, this is another of the billions of reasons why Mullvad should be the VPN of choice. But so many fucking people can't ever get over that their favorite social media influencer/Youtuber is offering a code for 200% off of NordShark VPN, now with extra AI.
I do use Mullvad for most web browsing though. But Imgur for example is blocked on it, and it's blocked in the UK, so I need NordVPN if I want to see any images there.
Most people's VPN usage is literally just geolocation restrictions and Nord is really good at that.
For the similar reason I do not using any go based proxy code in my MintFlow app, and use rust to implement some proxy protocols. But my app’s wireguard is natively implemented by fdio vpp plugin, so it’s based on C.
Nice, 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
Very cool project. Is it always an LD_PRELOAD or can it function as a standalone SOCKS proxy similar to wireproxy?
I wish they would improve wireguard-the-protocol as well: wireguard doesn't stand a chance against gov/isp blocks.
Known Limitations WireGuard is a protocol that, like all protocols, makes necessary trade-offs. This page summarizes known limitations due to these trade-offs. Deep Packet Inspection WireGuard does not focus on obfuscation. Obfuscation, rather, should happen at a layer above WireGuard, with WireGuard focused on providing solid crypto with a simple implementation. It is quite possible to plug in various forms of obfus…
Its funny, this is another of the billions of reasons why Mullvad should be the VPN of choice. But so many fucking people can't ever get over that their favorite social media influencer/Youtuber is offering a code for 200% off of NordShark VPN, now with extra AI.
For the similar reason I do not using any go based proxy code in my MintFlow app, and use rust to implement some proxy protocols. But my app’s wireguard is natively implemented by fdio vpp plugin, so it’s based on C.
I would not have guessed that iOS allows enough access to APIs to implement anything vpp-based. Very cool to see. I also enjoyed working with vpp (for the brief 6 months that I had with it).
One 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 wish they would improve wireguard-the-protocol as well: wireguard doesn't stand a chance against gov/isp blocks.
There are forks of wg because of this. Like amnezia-wg