[Vadim Smirnov]

While it’s possible to implement more advanced traffic rules, these limitations arise from ensuring backward compatibility with Wireguard configuration files.

[Vadim Smirnov]

If the Brave browser can be identified by the name ‘brave’ then the following configuration may suit your requirements:

AllowedIPs = X.X.X.X/32, X.X.X.X/32
AllowedApps = brave

[Vadim Smirnov]

Да обновить эти бинарники вполне достаточно, драйвер не менялся.

[Vadim Smirnov]

В 1.2.29.1 задача была пофиксить потенциальную панику в Boringtun. В 1.2.30 войдут небольшие оптимизации и добавлю ListenPort. Если ничего незапланированного не случится, то думаю на ближайших выходных.

[Vadim Smirnov]

Hello thrik,

It’s important to note that using AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0, ::/0 already covers the entire address space. Therefore, adding specific IPs like X.X.X.X/32 after this range is redundant. If your configuration file contains:

AllowedApps = firefox, qbittorrent
AllowedIPs = X.X.X.X/32, X.X.X.X/32

This configuration means that only the two listed applications (firefox and qbittorrent) will send data to the two specified IPs over the tunnel.

To achieve your goal of allowing almost all IPs to go outside your tunnel with some being inside, you might need to reconsider your configuration and ensure that there are no conflicts between AllowedApps and AllowedIPs.

Hope this helps!

[Vadim Smirnov]

I’m currently investigating a panic issue caused by boringtun when processing certain specific network packets, and your situation might be similar. Are you using WireSock in NAT or Virtual Adapter mode? Could you please gather the crash dump for further analysis?

[Vadim Smirnov]

Благодарю за предоставленную информацию. Да, я знаю что у WireSockUI есть проблемы. У этого приложения сложная судьба и несколько авторов. К сожалению, я крайне редко работаю с C#, и UI не моя специализация, но постараюсь найти время заняться обнаруженными багами.

[Vadim Smirnov]

I’m glad to hear that only using one filter seems to be a viable workaround for you. I understand the continued issues you’re experiencing with the file path and the .exe in the filter; indeed, this seems to be a limitation with WireSockUI.

In contrast, the CLI client does not have these issues, and you might find it more accommodating for your use case. I suggest giving it a try while we’re working on improvements to WireSockUI.

I will also try to allocate some time to look into improving WireSockUI, although I should note that my proficiency isn’t particularly strong in C#. Despite that, I’ll certainly do my best to address these issues and provide a better experience.

Thank you again for bringing this to my attention, and for your patience as we work on these improvements.

Cheers!

[Vadim Smirnov]

I advise against using both AllowedApps and DisallowedApps in the same configuration file. When AllowedApps is used, it implies that only the traffic from specified apps will be forwarded over the tunnel. Conversely, using DisallowedApps means that all traffic, except from these designated apps, will be sent over the tunnel. Combining both parameters can complicate the logic and potentially cause ambiguity in the routing rules.

Please avoid using quotation marks. The string specified in AllowedApps/DisallowedApps is divided by commas, and the resulting substrings are employed as matching patterns. If a pattern includes a backslash (\), it is treated as a complete pathname. Conversely, without a backslash, it is interpreted as a simple application name.

[Vadim Smirnov]

Could you kindly provide the complete configuration file, excluding any keys, for review? Please be aware that the configuration accepts only a single DisallowedApps parameter; however, it can contain a list of apps, separated by commas.

[Vadim Smirnov]

Sorry to bother, but does SOCKS5 proxy server actually requires to be on the same server where WireGuard is?

No, it’s not mandatory for the SOCKS5 server and the WireGuard (WG) server to operate on the same machine; they can indeed function on separate systems. In fact, I currently have such configurations in operation. However, it’s vital to underline that the SOCKS5 server MUST support UDP ASSOCIATE. Unfortunately, most ‘free’ SOCKS5 servers do not enable this feature.

[Vadim Smirnov]

After careful review, I acknowledge that the proposed modification is indeed feasible. However, it’s important to note that this task will demand a substantial investment of time, potentially spanning several full working days, for both implementation and rigorous testing. Given that I am currently employed full-time, my availability is limited. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a specific timeline or estimated completion date at this moment. Nevertheless, please be assured that this feature has been added to my TODO list and will be addressed as soon as my schedule permits.

[Vadim Smirnov]

У FTP есть нюансы с проходом через NAT, возможно в этом дело. Посмотрю как будет время.

[Vadim Smirnov]

Currently, interaction with the service running in the background is limited to standard Windows tools. I’m developing a more sophisticated version of the service, although my progress is constrained by limited time availability.

WiresockUI operates autonomously to start and control the WireGuard Tunnel. However, it lacks the functionality to regulate the background service or to operate concurrently with it.

Could you kindly elaborate on your query regarding port forwarding? You should be able to access your local ports from other WireGuard clients, provided they are connected to the same VPN network. However, please note that you may need to configure your Windows Firewall to open these specific ports or disable the firewall entirely.

[Vadim Smirnov]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will make an effort to find some time to work on WireSockUI.

[Author]

Posts