Torrenting with TunnlTo

[ziomek64]

When using TunnlTo for torrents I should select standard ethernet interface?

[xDqtreats]

No don't do that. That could leak through other adapters. I can't figure it out either on why TunnlTo won't create a virtual adapter.

[ziomek64]

Then how to torrent with tunnlto as VPN client?

[xDqtreats]

I've been fighting the same thing. If you want to risk it, the DNS set on your wireguard config file "should" stop leaks. However since it'll be routing through your main ethernet adapter, I wouldn't risk it. The devs said they don't have a virtual adapter mode enabled to allow for this to happen however one of their posts shows that it's planned. Instead of using TunnlTo, I just went to using WireSock itself until that feature is added. There is a WireSockUI but it kept crashing on me due to memory leaks, so I am running it as a service using command line. Same concept, just I was able to install an adapter.

It confuses me why they don't add it quicker since it's just a quick command within WireSock to install the adapter.

[brendanosborne]

It confuses me why they don't add it quicker since it's just a quick command within WireSock to install the adapter.

Because there are quite a few considerations. I can add the -lac parameter to the command but that requires admin privileges to work. I would need to add a new Rust crate to handle the Windows UAC prompt which is doable, but then it is annoying to click that every time you enable the tunnel. It would also break the way the auto-connect feature works. I could ask the user to run TunnlTo as Administrator but that is bad practice.

Another point is that most people want the virtual adapter mode because they want to effectively use it as a "kill switch" by selecting the adapter in their torrent application for example. But for this to be effective the WireSock virtual adapter really should start as a system service so that it is available when torrent apps etc. start up. If you've got your torrent app on auto-start with windows there will be a race condition. WireSock has a service mode but it also requires admin privileges to control and that takes us back to the first point. On top of that the service version of WireSock works slightly differently - it can control system level processes and there is a performance consideration depending on what you're trying to do. To keep the UI updated I would have to build out a bunch of controls and monitoring for the service but I'm not exactly sure how to verify it is operating correctly as I haven't yet looked into where where the service logs go.

Anyway, as this all gets quite complex I spoke to the WireSock developer about building out a version that would have a more streamlined integration into TunnlTo but we didn't really get far on that endeavor.