Any plans to support Wireguard VPN?

Viscosity Feedback
21

Yes please add wireguard support

22

longtime viscosity user witching its server OpenVPN → Wireguard.

Please add Wireguard support!
Just registered to this forum to ask for supporting this protocol

23

Just adding a “me too” onto this. Long time multi license Viscosity user with OpenVPN, but I would love to retain the Viscosity client functionality with wireguard as the transport. Paid upgrade or separate ViscosityWG Sparklabs product wouldn’t be a problem.

24

+1

25

So sad. I decided to ditch OpenVPN only to find out Viscosity does not support Wireguard. Looks like I’ll have to ditch my favorite VPN client.

26

At this point there is no reason not to support it and every reason to do so.

Wireguard’s performance is far superior to OpenVPN.

27

+1.

Some thoughts:

Love Viscosity. Love WireGuard.

But saying OpenVPN is dead is not accurate. There are things WireGuard does not currently do out of the box. Logging, MFA and SSO for example. You cannot have an LDAP or RADIUS Server with user accounts and then point a dozen WG servers to it and say “these users/groups can connect to this WireGuard instance”.

OpenVPN 2.5.0 now also has the ChaCha20-POLY1305 data cipher meaning the performance can be similar to that of WireGuard on devices without AES-NI like some mobiles, raspberry pi etc.

The tradeoff is that OpenVPN is quite convoluted legacy stuff where WireGuard is lean and mean modern day tech. And the statelessness of WireGuard is epic on mobile devices. No more 1 -2 minutes of “ping-timeout, reconnect super tedious handshake with data leaking unless you have a kill switch” every time you step out of an elevator / switch from LTE to WiFi.

For straight-forward site-site tunnels and for any mobile clients I love me some WireGuard but enterprise hub and spoke setups, i.e. where Viscosity is probably used quite a lot, OpenVPN is going to be with us for a while yet. Just waiting for Viscosity to support OpenVPN 2.5.0 so I can test ChaCha20-POLY1305 performance. I think it won’t make much difference on my Windows machines though. They have AES-NI. I think our bottleneck is on the OpenVPN server where it only uses a single thread. WireGuard shines there, too in terms of resource efficiency.

28

please add wireguard, i use it all the time on windows with mullvad.

29

Are any of the Viscosity developers reading this, or should we assume that SparkLabs doesn’t have any plans to support WireGuard? We need an official statement about future intentions, and a deadline.

30

+1
Any news on the Wireguard implemention? :mrgreen:

31

has been over one year now and no comment from sparklabs


32

I found this tweet about it’s implementation in a future version of the application.

Source: https://twitter.com/sparklabs/status/1357225362460012544

33

Any update about this?

34

Hi Jmars,

I’m afraid nothing we can add at this stage. You’ll probably find some other past tweets from us talking about waiting on wg-dynamic to be formalised (most commercial VPN Service Providers are doing configuration outside of the VPN connection over custom HTTPS APIs, which isn’t ideal), which is still relevant.

Cheers,
James

35

I created an account just for this: please add Wireguard support. It has proven itself and it is time to add support to Viscosity.

My goal of buying this product was to have all my VPN config in one app, but all of my servers are switching to Wireguard so I have to use the Official Wireguard app more and more


36

Hi James,

Any updates for wireguard support? As other users, we are migrating more and more to wireguard and would love to keep using viscosity in the future


37

Hi James,

I’m sure you’re sick of people asking this, but is it likely we are going to get this feature? It would make my life so much easier.

38

Hi User9186,

Feedback is always appreciated, even requests for features we’ve heard before. :slight_smile:

Multi-protocol support is still on the roadmap. We’re a small team, and so have to prioritise what we work on. I’ve commented elsewhere that one of the big projects we’ve been working on is fully porting Viscosity to Swift (instead of the mix of ObjC/C/C#/C++ we’ve been working with, which really slows down adding new functionality). We’ll be able to speed up adding new features once this is complete, but frustratingly projects like that always end up taking longer than you expect (and Viscosity has 15 years worth of code).

I do want to stress though that this doesn’t necessarily mean that we just need to finish off some porting work and multi-protocol support will be the immediate next thing. The security world moves quickly and our priorities are always in flux to ensure that Viscosity and its users are secure. Hopefully we have some good news on the multi-protocol front for you soon, but please don’t hold it against us if we need to jump to other things in the meantime to keep Viscosity up-to-speed.

Cheers,
James

39

Hi! Any updates on this topic?

40

Thanks for your response! I can say I was excited to hear that Viscosity is being completely rewritten in SWIFT code! :mrgreen: And I look forward to a future implementation of WireGuard.