Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    PIA using pfSense WireGuard Package

    WireGuard
    5
    19
    2.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • E
      eidi @FCS001FCS
      last edited by

      @FCS001FCS The github page has this:

      8a540952-4139-480f-9893-269ae7102e23-image.png

      I dont know if those packages exist in FreeBSD so I just used Debian to make sure

      F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • F
        FCS001FCS @eidi
        last edited by

        @eidi

        I think this is too complicate for me at the moment and I will stay with Open VPN when using PIA on my pfSense bare-metal setup.

        Hopefully, either PIA, or someone more knowledgeable with pfSense/FreeBSD, with create a pfSense package that does what you described for us less knowledgeable users.

        Thanks for the help.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          ctuchik @eidi
          last edited by

          @eidi First, thanks for this guide, and a little shame for PIA for not offering something like this themselves, as other VPNs are more than happy to oblige.

          But I'm not able to get it to work, probably due to ignorance.

          I did as you did and spun up a VM to the configuration OK, but there are some things missing from your guide that I can't fill in the blanks myself.

          EndPoint: somePIA-FQDN.com:1337 - This wasn't visible in my config, endpoint was an IP, I assume that's okay?

          outbound NATs on pfSense - That's something I have done for openvpn, but for wireguard, there was no interface created automatically (probably because the wireguard package is new?)
          So I created one myself using the address parameter from my config file as a static IP:
          [Interface]
          Address = xyz

          need to configure a new gateway - Then of course there's no gateway automatically created, so I did exactly the same thing there, but the gateway IP is of course dynamic.

          Then policy based routing...I did this too from my LAN rules, forcing traffic out through the above gateway.

          Now, packets are routing through the above rule, but when I check my public IP, it's my ISP.
          In addition, for wireguard status I've got zero TX/RX packets and 'Latest Handshake' is 'never'.

          Is anything jumping out at you here please?

          E 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • E
            eidi @ctuchik
            last edited by

            @ctuchik

            If your "last handshake" for the new WG tunnel says "never", the WG connection was not properly established. Until the little handshake icon shows up in green, there's something wrong in your set up

            Yes, the endpoint can be an IP address

            Interface creation: yes, this process is manual --> go to Interface/Assignments, create a new interface and associate it with the new WG tunnel (in my case it's called "tun_wg2 (tun_wg2)". In the interface configuration, select static IPv4 and on the IPv4 address field, enter the IP you saw in the pia.conf file under [interface]/Address: in my initial example earlier in the thread, this was 10.1.149.3

            The gateway. What you did is correct, you took the IP from [Interface]/Address from pia.conf and used it there.

            The whole problem in using PIA's WireGuard implementation is that every once in a while (a few weeks usually), the IP from [Interface]/Address changes, so you need to reconfigure both your gateway and interface manually. Its a big pain in the ass!

            I'm thinking about switching this whole set up to not use pfSense's WireGuard VPN client. Instead, maybe I'll create a simple debian VM with the scripts from https://github.com/pia-foss/manual-connections and use this VM's internal IP address as a gateway in pfSense (so the VM becomes a router). I think at least with this set up, the WG client should auto manage the occasional change in the IP, and I can have some watchdog script in the VM reconnect if it detects the WG tunnel is no longer working for some reason. But this will take time, I'm not very familiar with linux scripting

            C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
            • C
              ctuchik @eidi
              last edited by ctuchik

              @eidi thanks again dude.
              I might hang up my gloves on this one.
              Sounds like I'd fare better offloading wireguard to a 'router on a stick' with better WG support from PIA, similar to how you're doing it.

              E 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E
                eidi @ctuchik
                last edited by eidi

                @ctuchik In case you still want to do this, I found the permanent solution to the problem. Instead of trying to have pfSense's wireguard client establish the WireGuard connection to PIA, if you run pfSense in a virtualized environment like proxmox or ESXi, you can easily create a linux VM with two network interfaces whose only purpose in life is to establish the VPN session with PIA and serve as a gateway for pfSense. That way, PIA's scripts work out of the box in the way they're supposed to, and for pfSense your linux VM is just another WAN interface for practical effects. It was quite easy to create the linux vm, I used a distribution based on Debian called DietPi which is super slim and I give it less than 1GB of RAM, 2 virtual processors, and it can easily sustain 700mbps down and up with PIA's WireGuard connection active.

                With this approach, even if stuff changes in PIA's side, their scripts handle the disconnect / reconnect in the correct way.

                C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • C
                  ctuchik @eidi
                  last edited by

                  @eidi Nice one thanks.
                  I do have proxmox and strangely, I have also deployed dietpi a few times before haha!
                  Are you me? :)

                  I don't know if I mentioned it, but my workaround was to make 4x openvpn clients, then make a gateway group.
                  I was aiming to use this as a patchwork to the lack of openvpn 3 threading, but it turns out it's increased my anonymity greatly by presenting a constantly shifting public presence.

                  B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • B
                    Bjur @ctuchik
                    last edited by

                    @eidi @ctuchik: I want to use PIA with Wireguard. I have Pfsense on Esxi.
                    Can you help with a quick write up on how I can get this to work?

                    B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • B
                      Bjur @Bjur
                      last edited by Bjur

                      @eidi @ctuchik: I got the DietPi setup and have it connected to WG with PIA. I am only getting 400 mbps on a 1gbps line.
                      My questions is.

                      1. I have 2 NIC where the WAN is connected to PFSense. So that means the DietPi are getting IP address from PFSense DHCP Server then connect to PIA not directly with WAN network but through PFSenses WAN.
                        If I create 2 NIC in ESXi for DietPi, 1 for LAN, 1 for WAN, won't it create a problem with 2 VMs getting each WAN IP?

                      2. And how do I get my endpoints to point to DietPi?

                      C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • C
                        ctuchik @Bjur
                        last edited by

                        @Bjur I personally didn't get very far with the WG box, though I have done it in the past.
                        You would set your default gateway via DHCP to ensure traffic goes through the WG connection.
                        You would make sure that the traffic out to the Internet from the WG box is directly out, if it's got to go via pfSense itself.

                        I run my hypervisor behind the ISP's router, while that's probably super inefficient, it does mean I can make as many gateways as I please.

                        B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B
                          Bjur @ctuchik
                          last edited by

                          @ctuchik Thanks for the answer.
                          I'm not sure I follow.
                          When you set you default gateway, it's normally just an IP address like 192.168.1.1. What do you mean setting it via DHCP?

                          You would make sure that the traffic out to the Internet from the WG box is directly out, if it's got to go via pfSense itself.

                          So in Esxi I should dedicate a WAN interface to DietPi and still have the WAN interface also on PfSense?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • First post
                            Last post