|
|
|
|
|
by akerl_
2561 days ago
|
|
DPI doesn’t imply any ability to decrypt the traffic. It refers to networking equipment fingerprinting the traffic to detect application/protocol information (basically anything in the OSI model lower than layer3/4) That aligns with the DPI-related comments in the linked prior comment thread, which reference use of DPI for internet firewalling by various governments. Also, as noted in that same comment thread, bypassing DPI is an un-goal of Wireguard. |
|
Right, so then is your claim that there _is_ such information revealed in WireGuard? Because I don't see any.
If you do DPI for - say - TLS you get a strong fingerprint (JA3 is a popular thing for this) that lets you distinguish Google from Twitter, Firefox from Safari, or curl from Python's Requests, again without decrypting the traffic.
But where is the fingerprint in WireGuard? If I give you a tcpdump for 5 minutes of UDP traffic the most you can say is that some of it looks like WireGuard traffic. You might remember when we used to get this sort of useless diagnostic, "Over 4000 of these packets use port 80! This is web traffic". We did not call that "Deep Packet Inspection" because it wasn't deep and didn't in fact inspect the packets, just some metadata.