surfshark guide for pfsense wireguard

yucca1960

@Bob-Dig can you explain what PBR means? Thanks

flat4

@yucca1960
Pro Bull Riding

but that's not it

Bob.Dig

I am under the impression now that surfshark isn't working well with pfSense in general. Lately I only tested with one tunnel and that still made problems after some time (going down after 10-30 minutes and coming up again), even with MTU 1420.
But can it be, is WireGuard in FreeBSD so much different than in linux because I have no problems using OpenWRT with them.

rtorres

@Bob-Dig Surfshark has been working great for me, MTU 1420 and all no down time what so ever.

As bad idea as people would think, I have 4 instances going on with Surfshark - San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

Although I have been getting a lot of high latency for San Francisco - even though I live about an hour away...

Which location are you connecting to? Maybe I can give it a try and report back :)

Bob.Dig

@rtorres said in surfshark guide for pfsense wireguard:

Which location are you connecting to?

Germany, aren't you tired right now?

My testing, with only one tunnel, could have been flawed. On the other hand, it is what I have seen long before, so I have my doubts. For me, it is not working well with pfSense and good enough with OpenWRT, all virtualized.

Have you watched your tunnels closely for some time? Maybe Surfshark doesn't like me.

Bob.Dig

I just realized that there is a even worse explanation to this: I don't have a "VPN-killswitch" for OpenWRT. And the guide on surfshark for OpenWRT is just trash (confirmed)!
That means, I don't see problems on OpenWRT because I have leaks!
@rtorres Now my question to you, have you done any "leak protection" for your setup on pfSense?

rtorres

@Bob-Dig LOL YES! But insomnia always wins so I'm always up ALL night!

I watch them literally every morning, spot check during the day, and at night.

I make it a ritual to constantly check because I have Wireguard on my devices to 'remote' to my pfSense to take advantage of pfBlockerNG and Surfshark/IVPN VPN services.

I did not include ANY kill switches like IVPN suggests (not too sure if the Surfshark had that on their guide). I only included static routes and rules to allow from VPN server to WAN - although IDK if this is needed since this was part of the kill switch.

I am constantly checking on dnsleaktest.com for any leaks.. but so far so good, only the DNS I specified have been popping up. But I am thinking of just removing VPN DNS servers and hosting it 'in-house.'

I will add Germany to my list and monitor. I am curious as IVPN has been behaving but I see Surfshark has been a bit crazy with latency and packet loss...

I get a good 1.21Gbps - 1.25Gbps, I pay my ISP for 1.2Gbps.. so I call it good! :)

I have about 8 VPN connections on my pfSense and make sure I have a monitor IP on them to check latency and all that good stuff:

Bob.Dig

@rtorres said in surfshark guide for pfsense wireguard:

I did not include ANY kill switches like IVPN suggests (not too sure if the Surfshark had that on their guide).

So there is one option in pfSense you really should tick: Skip rules when gateway is down (SystemAdvancedMiscellaneous)

For my setup, it looks like BERLIN has continuous problems but also I have not seen the same flakiness now having a "Killswitch" for OpenWRT. So for me it could still be a problem in pfSense.

Irontalon

@yucca1960

Yes, I have a very good tutorial in PDF format specifically created for surfshark wireguard on Pfsense.

Apparently you can't attach files here so I put it on my Google drive.

[Bad link removed]

stephenw10

Your link is restricted, I can't open it.

savostian333

@Irontalon said in surfshark guide for pfsense wireguard:

@yucca1960

Yes, I have a very good tutorial in PDF format specifically created for surfshark wireguard on Pfsense.

Apparently you can't attach files here so I put it on my Google drive.

snipped link

It says "You need access"
Can u please modify the settings to allow the access for all?

johnpoz

@savostian333 you have a 1 post wonder give some random link to a pdf, Not sure why anyone would follow that link

Bob.Dig

@johnpoz But he also is. I would delete both users/posts if I would be in charge, better save than sorry.

stephenw10

Mmm, killed it for now. Let's see...

savostian333

@johnpoz said in surfshark guide for pfsense wireguard:

@savostian333 you have a 1 post wonder give some random link to a pdf, Not sure why anyone would follow that link

I was interested. Is that an issue?

stephenw10

It could be legit. Link was broken and we wait for an update from the poster....

flat4

danger will robinson, danger

The Party of Hell No

https://www.wundertech.net/how-to-set-up-wireguard-on-pfsense/

https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/lmv1cp/how_to_setup_wireguard_on_pfsense_252102_with/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXFbEbzFEXw

https://www.paolotagliaferri.com/create-wireguard-vpn-tunnel-with-pfsense-2-5-0/

https://coygeek.com/docs/pfsense-wireguard/ - 404

These are the links I found most helpful.

The Party of Hell No

@The-Party-of-Hell-No

Conversation I had with technician at Surf Shark about two WireGuard tunnels simultaneously:

another question can I use the same tunnel and have multiple gateways(Peers) going to different surfshark servers through the same tunnel?
Saul Buchanan
's avatar
Not at the same time, but you can use the same tunnel with different peers, yes.
Okay, can I create individual tunnels for each peer (Surfshark server) I wish to use as a gateways.
I have done this using the openvpn protocol
Saul Buchanan
's avatar
Essentially yes.
Isn't the problem generating keys for each tunnel?
Saul Buchanan
's avatar
Not really, as you can use the same private keys with multiple tunnels. I would just like to emphasize that multiple connections at a time from the same device will most likely encounter issues.

The challenge I ran into was thinking the endpoint port (51820) had to match the tunnel port.. It cannot be changed - obviously it is set by SurfShark, but it means both tunnels share the same endpoint port.

It seems to work: