WireGuard Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Reuben Martin <reuben.m.work@gmail.com>
To: chriztoffer@netravnen.de
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: [wireguard] Wireguard for Windows - local administrator necessary?
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:35:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CALJ2VGa9Jj8O6CC76YN7XzsTAD=b_ub5_WOF=uNFhca-0QyogQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13b61b9c-0fbd-2588-99b0-b377ce8a4c4f@netravnen.de>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1318 bytes --]

You can use fwknop to automate this type of sysadmin level changes in a
secure manner.

-Reuben

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 3:09 PM CHRIZTOFFER HANSEN <chriztoffer@netravnen.de>
wrote:

>
> Jason A. Donenfeld wrote on 27/11/2019 13:29:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:07 AM Chris Bennett <chris@ceegeebee.com>
> wrote:
> >> However I've found the logged in user needs local Administrator access
> to activate and de-activate a tunnel.  Is there any way around this?  Is it
> in the roadmap to remove this requirement?
> >
> > No intention of reducing the security of the system, no. WireGuard
> > requires administrator access because redirecting an entire machine's
> > network traffic is certainly an administrator's task.
>
> What if you this functionality is coded as opt-in, for e.g. a org/corp
> sysadmin to enable for the users, and *not* opt-out?
>
> The the default knob will still be secure, and the sysadmin has the
> conscious possibility to put power in the hand of the users. And it will
>   be the sysadm's choice. Not the team behind pushing the development of
> WireGuard forward, taking a choice on behalf of the consumer/user base.
>
> Chriztoffer
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2008 bytes --]

<div dir="auto">You can use fwknop to automate this type of sysadmin level changes in a secure manner. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-Reuben</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 3:09 PM CHRIZTOFFER HANSEN &lt;<a href="mailto:chriztoffer@netravnen.de">chriztoffer@netravnen.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Jason A. Donenfeld wrote on 27/11/2019 13:29:<br>
&gt; On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:07 AM Chris Bennett &lt;<a href="mailto:chris@ceegeebee.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">chris@ceegeebee.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; However I&#39;ve found the logged in user needs local Administrator access to activate and de-activate a tunnel.  Is there any way around this?  Is it in the roadmap to remove this requirement?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; No intention of reducing the security of the system, no. WireGuard<br>
&gt; requires administrator access because redirecting an entire machine&#39;s<br>
&gt; network traffic is certainly an administrator&#39;s task.<br>
<br>
What if you this functionality is coded as opt-in, for e.g. a org/corp <br>
sysadmin to enable for the users, and *not* opt-out?<br>
<br>
The the default knob will still be secure, and the sysadmin has the <br>
conscious possibility to put power in the hand of the users. And it will <br>
  be the sysadm&#39;s choice. Not the team behind pushing the development of <br>
WireGuard forward, taking a choice on behalf of the consumer/user base.<br>
<br>
Chriztoffer<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WireGuard mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

      reply index

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-26  2:35 Chris Bennett
2019-11-27 12:29 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-12-03 21:07   ` [wireguard] " CHRIZTOFFER HANSEN
2019-12-04  0:35     ` Reuben Martin [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CALJ2VGa9Jj8O6CC76YN7XzsTAD=b_ub5_WOF=uNFhca-0QyogQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=reuben.m.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=chriztoffer@netravnen.de \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

WireGuard Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/wireguard/0 wireguard/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 wireguard wireguard/ https://lore.kernel.org/wireguard \
		wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com
	public-inbox-index wireguard

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/com.zx2c4.lists.wireguard


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git