Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicoco | Hacker News Reader

https://github.com/dariost/soks works better for what I needed to do with wireguard. It does more or less the same thing but it reuses an existing wireguard interface. I detailed my use in this blog post https://www.nicoco.fr/blog/2023/09/10/wireguard/ (yes, shameless plug).

View on HN

This is very different. wireproxy seems to contain a userspace implementation of TCP and Wireguard. soks looks like an IP router than can only handle TCP, replacing routing tables as the control mechanism with something that decides to use or not use a SOCKS5 proxy.

I didn't mean to dismiss wireproxy, I was just sharing where my findings lead me when I set up wireguards tunnel for myself. Apologies if this didn't come out right.

Out of curiosity, why does this work better for you?

I used to do a similar thing using a Docker container on a Raspberry Pi, but being able to run this on any OS and with a guarantee that it won’t accidentally mess up the host’s routing table makes the user space solution a much better choice in my view.

It worked better for me because with some software (eg qbittorrent) you can directly choose the network interface to use, so having a 'standard' wg0 interface is great.

Now I also wanted to re-use this interface for some websites I visited, and the easy way to do that was to configure rules in foxyproxy to use a socks proxy for that, which is where soks come into play.