skip to main content
10.1145/3374664.3379532acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Performance Comparison of WireGuard and OpenVPN

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 March 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

A fundamental problem that confronts virtual private network (VPN) applications is the overhead on throughput, ease of deployment and use, and overall utilization. WireGuard is a recently introduced light and secure cross-platform VPN application. It aims to simplify the process of setting up a secure connection while utilizing the multi-threading capability and minimizing the use of bandwidth. There have been several follow-up studies on WireGuard since its birth, most of which focus on the security analysis of the protocol. Despite the author's claim that WireGuard has impressive wins over OpenVPN and IPsec, there is no rigorous analysis of its performance to date. This paper presents a performance comparison of WireGuard and its main rival OpenVPN on various metrics. We construct an automated test framework and deploy it on a total of eight nodes, including remote AWS instances and local virtual machines. Our test results clearly show two main edges that WireGuard has over OpenVPN, its performance on multi-core machines and its light codebase.

References

  1. Michael DeHaan. 2012. Ansible. https://www.ansible.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jason A Donenfeld. 2017. WireGuard: Next Generation Kernel Network Tunnel. In NDSS . https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2017.23160Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Benjamin Dowling and Kenneth G Paterson. 2018. A cryptographic analysis of the WireGuard protocol. In International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer, 3--21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--93387-0_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jon Dugan, Seth Elliott, Bruce A Mah, Jeff Poskanzer, and Kaustubh Prabhu. 2014. iPerf3, tool for active measurements of the maximum achievable bandwidth on IP networks. https://iperf.fr/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin Lipp, Bruno Blanchet, and Karthikeyan Bhargavan. 2019. A mechanised cryptographic proof of the WireGuard virtual private network protocol. In 2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy. 231--246. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSP.2019.00026Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Giampaolo Rodola. 2016. Psutil package: a cross-platform library for retrieving information on running processes and system utilization. https://pypi.org/project/psutil/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Peter Wu. 2019. Analysis of the WireGuard protocol . Master's thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. James Yonan. 2001. OpenVPN. https://openvpn.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Performance Comparison of WireGuard and OpenVPN

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CODASPY '20: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
          March 2020
          392 pages
          ISBN:9781450371070
          DOI:10.1145/3374664

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 16 March 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

          Upcoming Conference

          CODASPY '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader