Hacker News Reader

Jason previously stated in mailing list (couldn't find the thread now) that obfuscation is not a goal of WireGuard.

I'm aware of that. However there are obfuscation software e.g shadowsocks that wraps wireguard or any other connection.

To be honest WireGuard over Shadowsocks is neither common nor recommended, coz essentially it's TCP-over-TCP which will wreak havoc on TCP congestion control.

Unless you mean WireGuard over Shadowsocks UDP transport, but that is even less common.

(Disclaimer: I wrote the official Go port of Shadowsocks https://github.com/shadowsocks/go-shadowsocks2)

Thank you for your work :D

Sometimes a bad solution is better than no solution at all.

Actually I'd rather WireGuard adopt some obfuscation mechanisms, but as Jason stated it's a non-goal and the focus is to get WireGuard into mainstream OS kernels. So the only hope is to provide some obfuscation transport underneath.

Tunneling WG over SS would be inefficient for obvious reasons. Maybe there should be a more lightweight solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com