WireGuard is blocked by DPI in 10+ countries now. AmneziaWG 2.0 is a fork that makes the traffic look like random noise - DPI can’t tell it apart from normal UDP. Same crypto under the hood, negligible speed overhead.
I wrote an installer that handles the whole setup in one command on a clean Ubuntu/Debian VPS - kernel module, firewall, hardening, client configs with QR codes. Pure bash, no dependencies, runs on any $3/month box. MIT license.
Been running it from Russia where stock WireGuard stopped working mid-2025.
Author here. Didn’t expect this post to blow up like this — thanks for all the questions.
A bug came up right after I posted, and I just pushed out v5.8.0 for it. A user couldn’t get the tunnel up on a mobile connection in Russia, and I traced it back to the H1-H4 hash ranges: turns out I was hardcoding the same four ranges into every install, so every server running this script had an identical static fingerprint. The TSPU apparently learned those defaults - my bad.
The fix: H1-H4 now get randomized per install from /dev/urandom - different values every time, no shared defaults. Each server speaks its own dialect.
On the detection-vs-blocking point (possiblylinux127, WhyJiffie): you’re right that shape-shifting headers don’t make traffic invisible, just unmatchable to a simple rule. litchralee nailed it further up - statistical analysis over time could still fingerprint this, but that’s a per-target attack, not something a national DPI box runs on everyone. For the ISP-level blocking that’s actually happening in Russia and Iran right now, per-install randomization is what matters.
Hi! Firstly, thank you for using /dev/urandom as the proper source for random bytes.
Regarding the static H1-H4 issue, does your repo have any sort of unit tests that can verify the expected behavior? I’m aware that testing isn’t exactly the most pressing thing when it comes to trying to overcome ISP- and national-level blocking. But at the same token, those very users may be relying on this software to keep a narrow security profile.
To be abundantly clear, I’m very glad that this exists, that it doesn’t reinvent the WireGuard wheel, and that you’re actively fixing bug reports that come in. What I’m asking is whether there are procedural safeguards to proactively catch this class of issues in advance before it shows up in the field? Or if any are planned for the future.