openvpn

Pros of SoftEtherVPN

• Multi-protocol support (OpenVPN, L2TP/IPsec, SSTP, and more)
• Built-in NAT traversal and Dynamic DNS functionality
• User-friendly GUI for configuration and management

Cons of SoftEtherVPN

• Less widespread adoption and community support
• Potentially more complex setup for basic use cases
• Limited third-party audits compared to OpenVPN

Code Comparison

SoftEtherVPN configuration example:

LIST *o = ParseCommandList(c, cmd, "");
if (o == NULL)
{
    return ERR_INVALID_PARAMETER;
}

OpenVPN configuration example:

if (!push_option(options, &o->gc, string, msglevel, &option_types_found))
{
    goto err;
}

Both projects use C for core functionality, but SoftEtherVPN tends to have more complex code structures due to its multi-protocol support. OpenVPN's codebase is generally more focused and streamlined for its specific protocol.

SoftEtherVPN offers greater flexibility with its multi-protocol support and built-in features, making it suitable for diverse network environments. However, OpenVPN's widespread adoption, extensive community support, and focused development make it a more reliable choice for many users, especially those seeking a straightforward VPN solution.

Pros of WireGuard

• Significantly faster performance and lower latency
• Simpler codebase and easier to audit for security
• More efficient battery usage on mobile devices

Cons of WireGuard

• Less mature and battle-tested compared to OpenVPN
• Fewer configuration options and less flexibility
• Limited support for older operating systems

Code Comparison

WireGuard configuration example:

[Interface]
PrivateKey = <private_key>
Address = 10.0.0.1/24
ListenPort = 51820

[Peer]
PublicKey = <public_key>
AllowedIPs = 10.0.0.2/32

OpenVPN configuration example:

client
dev tun
proto udp
remote example.com 1194
resolv-retry infinite
nobind
persist-key
persist-tun
ca ca.crt
cert client.crt
key client.key

WireGuard's configuration is notably more concise and straightforward compared to OpenVPN's. This simplicity extends throughout the codebase, making WireGuard easier to implement and maintain. However, OpenVPN's extensive configuration options provide greater flexibility for complex network setups.

Pros of Pritunl

• User-friendly web interface for easier management
• Built-in multi-factor authentication support
• Seamless integration with cloud platforms like AWS and Azure

Cons of Pritunl

• Less mature and battle-tested compared to OpenVPN
• Smaller community and ecosystem
• Limited customization options for advanced users

Code Comparison

OpenVPN configuration example:

port 1194
proto udp
dev tun
ca ca.crt
cert server.crt
key server.key

Pritunl configuration example (in JSON format):

{
  "bind_addr": "0.0.0.0",
  "port": 1194,
  "protocol": "udp",
  "dh_param_bits": 2048
}

Both projects use similar configuration parameters, but Pritunl uses a JSON-based format, while OpenVPN uses a more traditional configuration file format. OpenVPN's configuration is generally more verbose and allows for more fine-grained control, while Pritunl's approach is more streamlined and easier to manage through its web interface.

Pritunl offers a more modern, user-friendly approach to VPN management, making it attractive for organizations looking for an easy-to-deploy solution. However, OpenVPN's maturity, extensive documentation, and large community make it a more robust choice for users who require advanced customization and have the technical expertise to manage it.

Pros of algo

• Simpler setup and configuration process
• Focuses on modern, secure protocols (WireGuard, IKEv2)
• Automated deployment to cloud providers

Cons of algo

• Limited customization options
• Supports fewer platforms and devices
• Less extensive documentation and community support

Code comparison

algo:

def deploy_strongswan(self):
    self.copy_ipsec_files()
    self.configure_ipsec()
    self.configure_strongswan()
    self.start_strongswan()

openvpn:

static void
do_init_first_time(void)
{
    /* initialize random number generator */
    prng_init(NULL, 0);
    /* initialize allocation tracking */
    dmalloc_init();
}

The algo project uses Python for its deployment scripts, focusing on automation and ease of use. OpenVPN, written in C, provides lower-level control and performance optimization.

algo is designed for quick, secure deployments with minimal configuration, while OpenVPN offers more flexibility and customization options. OpenVPN has a larger user base and more extensive documentation, but algo simplifies the VPN setup process for users who prioritize modern protocols and cloud deployments.

Pros of Streisand

• Automated setup of multiple VPN protocols and services
• Includes additional privacy-enhancing tools like Tor and Shadowsocks
• Designed for ease of use and quick deployment on cloud platforms

Cons of Streisand

• Less flexible for custom configurations compared to OpenVPN
• May include unnecessary services for some users
• Potentially larger attack surface due to multiple services

Code Comparison

OpenVPN configuration example:

proto udp
port 1194
dev tun
ca ca.crt
cert server.crt
key server.key
dh dh2048.pem

Streisand Ansible playbook excerpt:

- name: Install OpenVPN
  apt:
    name: openvpn
    state: present

- name: Generate OpenVPN configuration
  template:
    src: openvpn-server.conf.j2
    dest: /etc/openvpn/server.conf

While OpenVPN focuses solely on its VPN protocol, Streisand automates the deployment of multiple privacy tools. OpenVPN offers more granular control over its configuration, whereas Streisand prioritizes ease of use and quick setup. The code comparison shows OpenVPN's direct configuration approach versus Streisand's use of Ansible for automated deployment.

Pros of openvpn-install

• Simplified installation process with an easy-to-use script
• Automated setup of OpenVPN server and client configurations
• Regular updates and active community support

Cons of openvpn-install

• Limited customization options compared to the official OpenVPN repository
• May not include all advanced features available in the core OpenVPN project
• Potential security risks if not properly maintained or updated

Code Comparison

openvpn:

static void
do_init_frame_net(struct frame *frame)
{
  frame_reserve_frame_net(frame);
  frame->buf.len = 0;
}

openvpn-install:

if [[ -e /etc/debian_version ]]; then
    os="debian"
    group_name="nogroup"
elif [[ -e /etc/centos-release || -e /etc/redhat-release ]]; then
    os="centos"
    group_name="nobody"

The openvpn repository contains the core OpenVPN software implementation, while openvpn-install focuses on providing a user-friendly installation script. The code snippets highlight this difference, with openvpn showing low-level C code for frame handling, and openvpn-install demonstrating shell scripting for system detection and configuration.