Jump to content
TorGuard
  • 0

TG Android Client v1.58.2


Support

Question

Support

== Release v1.58.2, 2020-07-14

Internal Changes:

-------------------------------

- - Fix issue where APP could not connect when using "Direct IP" or had gone into Offline Mode.

Downloads:

-------------------------------

The Amazon App Store version is still waiting on approval, should be out tomorrow.

The APK can be downloaded here https://torguard.net/downloads.php

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Support
On 9/8/2020 at 3:29 AM, rendez-Vu said:

I'm using this version on my Fire Stick, and TG keeps going offline while streaming. Is there a fix for this?

 

It would normally go offline if your device loses its connection - are you sure the connection is stable otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Support
21 hours ago, balexter said:

Any planned time line when wireguard via native TG android app will be available?

 

We are working on it but no eta right now as we have some issues to work out, I hate to give an eta at this stage as this could change - it won't be too long.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
DRAGON519

I really think they should've released wireGuard on android first because most streaming devices use android OS and obviously while streaming you need the fastest speeds possible to me it would've made more sense four them to release wireGuard On android first given that the main reason for implementing wire guard is the speed boost it gives the servers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
DRAGON519

I don't use my phone to stream I use my Nvidia shield And will agree that people can be ignorant and impatient I am not implying that they should rush wireguard As I also want wireguard  to be as stable as possible for android when finally released It's just frustrating as a customer when you're told that wireguard Will be released first For PC and the other platforms will follow soon there after and I understand the pandemic has slowed the process down And you can't blame anyone for that but it's been months so I can understand why people are frustrated 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
DRAGON519
16 hours ago, 19807409 said:

 

CantEvenShit would be probably better username showing properly your broken state of your mind. Your words are garbage, flies fly around you and thats probably why your mouthfull mouth is full. You must have missed to point out the company which developed it, Cisco. TorGuard is shit according to you because they offer different protocols for different people for different usage. It is you who shill stupidness around. Go kiss your mumy next time, would be wiser than to show your diligence online.

> OpenVPN is a fine protocol in an x86 environment because it's single threaded nature is not hindered due to the processors having native instructions for AES encryption.

Now you shilling for openvpn according to your broken logic. You have no clue what architecture is and even less what a single thread is. You can waffle it down with terms which you even could explain 😂

> When you move on to ARM processors in set top video boxes, these processors do not have native AES instructions.
Wow, you must be one of those proud boys being incapable to check hardware specification. Who cares about what halfbaked, butthurted "CantShit" person like you spills here around? You came to troll and create harm and not to help anybody or even try to be nice here.

> This creates a bottleneck for the openVPN protocol since it is single threaded.
you are full of nonsense, your claims are stupid straight away, most users in this world have ISP contracts which do not get those high speeds on which openvpn would be at all a bottleneck, like always, throwing stupid claims around pretending to be an expert but then incapable to describe it all. Probably your head and your incapability to understand what you read does not allow you understand, currently, only your head seems to be a 🍼 bottleneck

> iKEV2, while not suitable for countries which have oppressive internet blocks, is a much better option due to its multi-threaded nature.
Go and beg then TorGuard to allow you to dream. Unlike you, I do not care what you use and care even less about iKEV2 and whatever nonsense gets into your head. Being so clever you seem to be also incapable and just waffling around, go and rent your own server and make you your own, I guess you failed and I guess you need anyway a server with a GUI as if you have to find out things about terminal you might hurt you as addition :)

> The plain facts are that you have no idea what you're talking about and wireguard is stable.
Yes, plain stupid the statement like every one which you made before. You have no clue what word stable is. Now go do your homework and ask wireguard developers what is stable state, how they define it and then go to VPN providers and ask them if wireguard is stable for their company to be used. Sofware can be released as stable in public by its devs. If you would use your time to read more books instead waffling bullshit on internet forums calling other people stupid. For your stupid claims about wireguard, torguard and implementation waffling, its even not worth a reply, maybe one, new username does not hide the person behind it. Get some lollipops and suck on them instead posting rubbish here, lollyboy you are

I don't want to argue with you but I have a question you said

 

 This creates a bottleneck for the openVPN protocol since it is single threaded.
you are full of nonsense, your claims are stupid straight away, most users in this world have ISP contracts which do not get those high speeds on which openvpn would be at all a bottleneck, like always, throwing stupid claims around pretending to be an expert but then incapable to describe it all. Probably your head and your incapability to understand what you read does not allow you understand, currently, only your head seems to be a 🍼 bottleneck

 

My ISP is capable of providing 1000 Mbps download speeds Would using the openvpn protocol create bottleneck Issues for me

                                                               

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
DRAGON519
1 hour ago, 19807409 said:

As the comment for which you have a question and discussion was raised by provocation, I am not sure that you honestly ask, but will assume so.

You will probably get max one fifth with openvpn with proper hardware. Can you validate my claim? Wireguard should be able to give you full speed, therefore, I would suggest you to try wireguard.

I would have also one question to you, why don't you test it? I would assume you did and therefore do not really understand why you asked at all if you can test, as whatever somebody tells you, the result which you get will tell you the final state and torguard supports both protocols, so, why don't you try it out instead asking as it would be much faster than to wait for reply?

I have tried it for openvpn on my Nvidia shield I haven't tried it for wire guard yet because wire guard Has not been implemented on The android client yet and I do not want to go through the trouble of setting up the wire guard client on my Nvidia shield sorry I should've included my speed test results in my previous question but the max speed I get is 120 Mbps so Is that a slower speed then I should be getting based on the fact that I'm using an Nvidia shield and the fact that my ISP is capable of 1000 Mbps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
DRAGON519
11 hours ago, 19807409 said:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard.android&hl=en_US&gl=US

its working properly and is very stable.

As every vpn, they have their benefits and some minuses, I would not judge which is the worst because in some cases you simply have to use specific, like in companies behind freaky firewalls allowing only a protocol used by the company, in most cases anyconnect, is some openvpn etc...

About your nvidia tegra, I would not be sure, but I never read in specific openvpn to be recommended for arm unless of course you have other restrictions like mentioned above. Wireguard runs well with arm, you should try it out.

together with speedtest, you can make also iperf tests or wget, but that is not important at all to post them online, its your results, important to you and making tests on same server without vpn and then doing same tests with vpn will show you how good your vpn is performing compared to your ISP. When you test, choose closest available VPN server to you.

120Mbps seems actually right to me. I doubt your cpu can do more. Run in parallel task manager showing you cpu usage, then you will see if it is maxed out or not. You could increase/decrease speed with higher/lower encryption and other settings, but in generla I would believe your cpu is maxed out and 120 seems right to me. If I remember well, I got around 80 from a 250 connection with openvpn on rock4.

If your provider sells you connection then you should check if you really get it, with some device which has no bottlenecks like 100Mb port instead of 1Gb one or some SoC, make your tests with some modern pc/notebook connected over original router provided by your ISP. It does depend if it is lte or cable one, as with lte you probably will never get 1000 as well as in most cases below 300. If it is cable one, then it can be very stable 1000 but your gigabit port reaches its limits, more is not possible, you will never reach 1000, but if speedtests show you over 900 then your provider offers you proper connection. Depending on where your device is located, for iperf3 this server would be in germany: https://speedtest.wtnet.de/ , however there are not that many public iperf3 servers and probably simple speedtest would be sufficient for you if you reach 900 where again, run task manager to see on which speeds your cpu gets restricted, you might be able then to increase it by few Mb/s in disabling some apps/closing them if they use some cpu.

Thank you for your advice I do believe I am getting the best speeds I possibly can when I run the speed test without a VPN I get 932 download speed I figured I was getting the most out of TorGuard I possibly could but I just wanted to make sure 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
19807409
3 hours ago, DRAGON519 said:

My ISP is capable of providing 1000 Mbps download speeds Would using the openvpn protocol create bottleneck Issues for me

As the comment for which you have a question and discussion was raised by provocation, I am not sure that you honestly ask, but will assume so.

You will probably get max one fifth with openvpn with proper hardware. Can you validate my claim? Wireguard should be able to give you full speed, therefore, I would suggest you to try wireguard.

I would have also one question to you, why don't you test it? I would assume you did and therefore do not really understand why you asked at all if you can test, as whatever somebody tells you, the result which you get will tell you the final state and torguard supports both protocols, so, why don't you try it out instead asking as it would be much faster than to wait for reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
19807409
2 hours ago, DRAGON519 said:

I have tried it for openvpn on my Nvidia shield I haven't tried it for wire guard yet because wire guard Has not been implemented

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard.android&hl=en_US&gl=US

its working properly and is very stable.

On 10/6/2020 at 9:38 PM, Fdwa4323fdswdadgfedfsa said:

OpenVPN has to be the worst possible protocol to expect to run well on even the most powerful ARM processors like Nvidia's tegra.

As every vpn, they have their benefits and some minuses, I would not judge which is the worst because in some cases you simply have to use specific, like in companies behind freaky firewalls allowing only a protocol used by the company, in most cases anyconnect, is some openvpn etc...

About your nvidia tegra, I would not be sure, but I never read in specific openvpn to be recommended for arm unless of course you have other restrictions like mentioned above. Wireguard runs well with arm, you should try it out.

2 hours ago, DRAGON519 said:

I should've included my speed test results in my previous question but the max speed I get is 120 Mbps so Is that a slower speed then I should be getting based on the fact that I'm using an Nvidia shield and the fact that my ISP is capable of 1000 Mbps?

together with speedtest, you can make also iperf tests or wget, but that is not important at all to post them online, its your results, important to you and making tests on same server without vpn and then doing same tests with vpn will show you how good your vpn is performing compared to your ISP. When you test, choose closest available VPN server to you.

120Mbps seems actually right to me. I doubt your cpu can do more. Run in parallel task manager showing you cpu usage, then you will see if it is maxed out or not. You could increase/decrease speed with higher/lower encryption and other settings, but in generla I would believe your cpu is maxed out and 120 seems right to me. If I remember well, I got around 80 from a 250 connection with openvpn on rock4.

If your provider sells you connection then you should check if you really get it, with some device which has no bottlenecks like 100Mb port instead of 1Gb one or some SoC, make your tests with some modern pc/notebook connected over original router provided by your ISP. It does depend if it is lte or cable one, as with lte you probably will never get 1000 as well as in most cases below 300. If it is cable one, then it can be very stable 1000 but your gigabit port reaches its limits, more is not possible, you will never reach 1000, but if speedtests show you over 900 then your provider offers you proper connection. Depending on where your device is located, for iperf3 this server would be in germany: https://speedtest.wtnet.de/ , however there are not that many public iperf3 servers and probably simple speedtest would be sufficient for you if you reach 900 where again, run task manager to see on which speeds your cpu gets restricted, you might be able then to increase it by few Mb/s in disabling some apps/closing them if they use some cpu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
19807409
57 minutes ago, DRAGON519 said:

Thank you for your advice I do believe I am getting the best speeds I possibly can when I run the speed test without a VPN I get 932 download speed I figured I was getting the most out of TorGuard I possibly could but I just wanted to make sure 

you are welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2
19807409
54 minutes ago, DRAGON519 said:

I really think they should've released wireGuard on android first because most streaming devices use android OS and obviously while streaming you need the fastest speeds possible to me it would've made more sense four them to release wireGuard On android first given that the main reason for implementing wire guard is the speed boost it gives the servers

I was suggesting torguard support not to rush with wireguard as wireguard was not in stable version when they started. Demand for wireguard was so big that torguard wanted to finish their implementation as soon as possible for which they required it first to work with normal client on pc. When torguard released finally wireguard, they did it with 5 servers which you can see on your account and those were (at least for me) not blocked by some services like netflix which in fact you can use with wireguard client on your mobile phone or any device. But as it is always the same game, you give a finger and people want your whole hand, which happened here, users wanted their dedicated ips and everything else to be available and applied, so torguard did apply it and it works with TG client. Then users claimed they want to use also wireguard with non TG client, other users helped, found out and replied, well, this was then also given and explained how to be used, but the result is also like always, this is a good example:

Sadly it is normal case that some users flip out in their request and are simply not patient enough as well as they are most loud. The user in linked reply is good example how it generaly works, people always just demand and demand but tend never to remember, also here, if torguard would release today in hectic android client which is buggy, it might make you satisfied if it works, but as example above, most are not, conclusion is that I do not really see people commenting on how good wireguard is and works but complaining, torguard should not try to rush things just because some users request it to be rushed.

As for mobile phone, you can install wireguard on your phone. If you say that for streaming you need a lot, well, 4k streams require about 50-70Mbits/s and every never phone can reach that speed with quite every protocol, openconnect will give also quite the max out of your connection if it is under 300Mbits, by that it is more than sufficient even if you share your connection with 6 other people watching 4k streams over your phone. I do fully agree that mobile phone client is probably most important today, however, I have no statistics in numbers about torguard's clients but I do assume that most connections are still with TG Client.

TorGuard also said that they are working on android client and wireguard and I believe it will be quite soon available, until then, if you want to use wireguard, you will have to use wireguard client which actually works better than TG client and does not drain my battery (it still uses slightly more than it should, but I do not need to recharge during the day).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2
19807409
9 minutes ago, DontEvenPeek said:

The issue of how slow torguard is implementing wireguard into android is one thing

In my eyes this would be wrong view. Wireguard release was not in stable status until recent months. For any company it means that it is very risky to go with such products with their productive systems. Beside that, wireguard is different on itself than other mentioned protocols and with the amount of servers and clients which torguard has, they must ensure not to break existing system which can happen when you apply globably something that might be buggy.

Wireguard had by itself difficulties with wireguard client for android and it is still not a perfect solution, however, very impressive for something that actually reached its first stable version. Expecting that TorGuard's client works better is probably just illusion, however, if released, nobody wants to have missing all those other features like openvpn etc.. . On Android's torguard app openconnect is disabled too, by that, you are really restricted on android if you rely on torguard client where you do not want to use ressource hungry openvpn.

Beside all of that, you have to include then variety of services which TorGuard offers and it is a job on itself to just test it, not speaking about development at all.

16 minutes ago, DontEvenPeek said:

but the blatant fact they refuse to implement iKEv2 into their android application is a joke.

I really am unsure about this, just thinking that every implementation requires time and resources, I think most VPN providers concentrate on most popular protocols where I would not think that iKEv2 is that popular. I always am happy if new protocols and vpn solutions are added, as each single of them might find happy user. On other side, they cant and probably should not offer every VPN protocol unless they have big enough teams to deal with it. I doubt that iKEv2 or any other can beat wireguard but wireguard on itself is very, very new and nobody actually knows if there are some serious flaws and implementing worldwide wireguard took them time and ressources, same would happen with iKEv2 which would require the same. I really cant judge, but requests to add new protocols should be directed to support and only them can probably reply if they have interest to implement iKEv2 or not, I for myself do not use it on linux machines and really have not much up to none experience with iKEv2.

24 minutes ago, DontEvenPeek said:

OpenVPN has to be the worst possible protocol to expect to run well on even the most powerful ARM processors like Nvidia's tegra. If torguard actually would just implement iKEV2, then it would be fine if they delayed adding wireguard, because for the most part, iKEV2 works just as well. The main issue is only having OpenVPN as an option.

That is not really correct. Considering wireguard is "non stable", if I talk about stable, then it is openconnect which is of my choice and it is available for every architecture. There are simply many people who got excited setting up OpenVPN and wrote ton of guides for it, not many even try openconnect.

By that, I would assume that torguard offers most required protocols, including following future with already playing now with wireguard (where most do not offer it) where it really is a big deal to have openconnect as most companies do block any other protocols in their networks.

I did not use OpenVPN for years, just if I wanted to test something, but in general, why should I use it if there is every other protocol which will actually do the job better.

I use different ARM based SoC boards and all of them reach great speed with openconnect since years, same as wireguard as it hits 250Mbits which the ISP offers where they are connected.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2
19807409
On 10/10/2020 at 4:55 PM, DontEvenPeek said:

It is clear you have absolutely no knowledge about VPNs what so ever and you're just spewing complete garbage, which is very evident by you shilling a closed source standard such as open connect.

 

OpenVPN is a fine protocol in an x86 environment because it's single threaded nature is not hindered due to the processors having native instructions for AES encryption. When you move on to ARM processors in set top video boxes, these processors do not have native AES instructions. This creates a bottleneck for the openVPN protocol since it is single threaded. iKEV2, while not suitable for countries which have oppressive internet blocks, is a much better option due to its multi-threaded nature.

 

The plain facts are that you have no idea what you're talking about and wireguard is stable. The issue with wireguard is that the default protocol does not create an environment that is suitable for anonymous VPN connections such as torguard. This leads them having to implement a modified wireguard to ensure privacy of its users.

 

CantEvenShit would be probably better username showing properly your broken state of your mind. Your words are garbage, flies fly around you and thats probably why your mouthfull mouth is full. You must have missed to point out the company which developed it, Cisco. TorGuard is shit according to you because they offer different protocols for different people for different usage. It is you who shill stupidness around. Go kiss your mumy next time, would be wiser than to show your diligence online.

> OpenVPN is a fine protocol in an x86 environment because it's single threaded nature is not hindered due to the processors having native instructions for AES encryption.

Now you shilling for openvpn according to your broken logic. You have no clue what architecture is and even less what a single thread is. You can waffle it down with terms which you even could explain 😂

> When you move on to ARM processors in set top video boxes, these processors do not have native AES instructions.
Wow, you must be one of those proud boys being incapable to check hardware specification. Who cares about what halfbaked, butthurted "CantShit" person like you spills here around? You came to troll and create harm and not to help anybody or even try to be nice here.

> This creates a bottleneck for the openVPN protocol since it is single threaded.
you are full of nonsense, your claims are stupid straight away, most users in this world have ISP contracts which do not get those high speeds on which openvpn would be at all a bottleneck, like always, throwing stupid claims around pretending to be an expert but then incapable to describe it all. Probably your head and your incapability to understand what you read does not allow you understand, currently, only your head seems to be a 🍼 bottleneck

> iKEV2, while not suitable for countries which have oppressive internet blocks, is a much better option due to its multi-threaded nature.
Go and beg then TorGuard to allow you to dream. Unlike you, I do not care what you use and care even less about iKEV2 and whatever nonsense gets into your head. Being so clever you seem to be also incapable and just waffling around, go and rent your own server and make you your own, I guess you failed and I guess you need anyway a server with a GUI as if you have to find out things about terminal you might hurt you as addition :)

> The plain facts are that you have no idea what you're talking about and wireguard is stable.
Yes, plain stupid the statement like every one which you made before. You have no clue what word stable is. Now go do your homework and ask wireguard developers what is stable state, how they define it and then go to VPN providers and ask them if wireguard is stable for their company to be used. Sofware can be released as stable in public by its devs. If you would use your time to read more books instead waffling bullshit on internet forums calling other people stupid. For your stupid claims about wireguard, torguard and implementation waffling, its even not worth a reply, maybe one, new username does not hide the person behind it. Get some lollipops and suck on them instead posting rubbish here, lollyboy you are

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...