37
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Scoopta@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Why must everyone be removing OVPN ๐Ÿ™

[-] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

Because wireguard is vastly better.

[-] Scoopta@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago
[-] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How so? EDIT: I see you've already elaborated in other comments.

[-] cellardoor@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
  • It is inefficient in both tunnel and transport mode, sacrificing 20-30% of available bandwidth.
  • It is cryptographically expensive, making your clients work harder and costing the VPN provider more money to host nodes.
  • It is complex to setup and deploy.
  • Uses outdated crypto.
  • Operates in Userspace.
  • WireGuard is essentially better in every one of these regards.
[-] Scoopta@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

OpenVPN operates in kernel space as of 6.16. Well specifically for the data channel. Control channel is still managed in userspace so you don't have to do asymmetric TLS in the kernel. This also reduces the overhead and increases performance substantially. It is slightly more complicated to setup but barely tbh (I'm speaking from the server side). Is the crypto outdated? Not as far as I'm aware.

[-] ISO@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

And user-space implementations of WireGuard are used a lot anyway, especially on mobile. Every VPN provider app ships with one, at least as a backup (It's wireguard-go usually since boringtun is not well maintained).

[-] Scoopta@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm just pointing out that OpenVPN has a kernel implementation since it does seem to make quite a large performance difference when available.

[-] Turret3857@infosec.pub 3 points 1 year ago
[-] Scoopta@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

The big thing for public VPNs is the server can push the configuration to the client rather than having it be static. Config push, specifically for addressing is basically the only viable way to do a NATless VPN. Additionally while unrelated to public VPN providers wg does not have the ability to bind to individual IPs which is a headache for my internal VPN use case.

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
37 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

5093 readers
23 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS