Support will be removed on both client and server side.

The process of removing OpenVPN from our app starts today and may be completed much earlier.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
155 points

TL;DR They are moving to wireguard only.

I’m ok with that.

permalink
report
reply

Except the 5 device limit. With OVPN it means 5 connected devices, with WG it means 5 registered public keys.

Say you use the official Mullvad app and also setup some 3rd party WG client on your phone. That’s now taking up 2 devices. Or perhaps you do have 6 devices, but you never have more than 2 of them running at once. With WG, that’s still 6 devices regardless of them being connected or not, while with OVPN it will indeed be just 2 devices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s true. I use user profiles on GrapheneOS and have to have each profile count as its own device in Mullvad, when obviously I’m not going to be using them simultaneously.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Can you not use the same keys for multiple devices like you’d normally be able to?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Not at the same time as they would conflict.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s always borked both connections for me

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

This is a great point, if they’re gonna make this change, they should allow unlimited keys (or at least more than 5) and just limit the number of simultaneous devices on wireguard too. If that’s feasable

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It might be feasible, but it’s a bit awkward to implement because Wireguard is stateless and doesn’t know if a client is offline or just hasn’t sent any traffic for some time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

That’s a pity.

Is there something preventing you from having the same key ready for use on more than one device? So that two devices that are never connected at the same time can take turns using the same key?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not at all

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

One of my devices uses three keys because out of the two local servers I have, they seem to go down every other month, so I need a failover.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Unless they’re simultaneously connected you could share the same private key in all of the configs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It just sounds easier to think about it with wireguard then. No surprises.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I can only assume that is the main reason for this change. Pitty.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I already commented on this, but do they actually block you from setting up multiple devices with the same key?

I’ve had my own server node for a while, there’s nothing stopping me from using the same key and config on multiple client devices, as long as I don’t connect them at the same time.

I’m not limited to five keys, obviously, but the keys aren’t device specific. I could set up just one on the server, and then use it everywhere.

Does Mullwad stop this in some way?

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Wireguard is more elegant and performant, and has a smaller attack surface. OpenVPN, meanwhile, is a legacy protocol, and retiring it should be a good thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

And when exactly did we declare openvpn a legacy protocol?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

About the same time VPN platforms started migrating away from it

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Can someone explain why this is good or bad?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Not great if you use the transmission-openvpn docker container. Guess I need to come up with a new plan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Why not use a qbittorrent WireGuard one?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Wasn’t aware of this. I’ll check it out! One annoying thing with Mullvad though is the wireguard keys count against your device limit and I already have problems with that. Using OpenVPN didn’t count against the limit. The again I’m also considering switch to Surfshark since its cheaper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There’s also Transmission-Wireguard by the same guy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

sometimes people keep a container for the vpn/proxy, and set up the other one to use the network of the other container

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes I will probably switch to deluge now

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It was good to have it as a backup. I primarily use wireguard but now its a single point of failure.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Privacy

!privacy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

  • Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
  • Don’t promote proprietary software
  • Try to keep things on topic
  • If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
  • Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
  • Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

Community stats

  • 4.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.7K

    Posts

  • 24K

    Comments