Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkilpatr | Hacker News Reader

We are leasing the connection used to route to the exit point. If you want to think about it like that.

In general our only 'mesh tech' innovation is the mandatory WireGuard encryption for all user traffic. Which as far as I know is a first. The rest is the billing and some ease of configuration.

View on HN

Yeah, I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t innovate. I just meant that the fundamental baseline for a mesh is the same.

Looks interesting. I looked over your presentation but I am still unclear about who owns/leases the exit nodes. Could you clearly define 'exit node' for me?

Thanks

Think of it as an integrated VPN, anyone can own and operate one. They charge like any other node in the network so they can make money or at least cover costs.

The main issue is one of trust, we have left it up to the user what exit nodes to add to their system beyond a few we ship in the firmware run by ourselves.

Personally I think this is a point of weakness long term, we need to decide on criteria for including other exit servers. Trust is hard

How do we know what's in WireGuard?

I'm not sure how to parse this question. So I'll answer both interpretations.

WireGuard itself is open source, our firmware and software is open source. So if the question is about encryption/software integrity go take a look.

If it's about what traffic is routed through WireGuard the answer is all user traffic to the internet, no exceptions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com