Support Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 Hello, We have a new build with bug fixes and a couple internal changes, now we include a linux build - please test guys, appreciated as a always. ChangeLog: ==================================== - All platforms: Internal changes + Bug fixes - All platforms: Disable legacy Internet Kill Switch - MacOSX: Add Firewall restrictions ==================================== Downloads: Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test.exe Mac: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5f8.test.dmg Linux (x86_64, Ubuntu/Debian) : https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb Linux (x86_64, Fedore/CentOS): https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.rpm Regards TorGuard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 thx, this was very fast. EDIT: links not working Not Found The requested URL /downloads/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 here are corrected links: Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test.exe Mac: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5f8.test.dmg Linux (x86_64, Ubuntu/Debian) : https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb Linux (x86_64, Fedore/CentOS): https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.rpm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Support Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, 19807409 said: here are corrected links: Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test.exe Mac: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5f8.test.dmg Linux (x86_64, Ubuntu/Debian) : https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb Linux (x86_64, Fedore/CentOS): https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.rpm Thanks, not sure what happened there 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 42 minutes ago, Support said: Thanks, not sure what happened there 🙂 Users fault , such things happen if process is not automated, mistakes happen, luckily we are still humans. ```/beta/``` was missing. Installation went just fine, after enabling wireguard in client and trying to connect wireguard froze, it required client restart. I tested for now only 1 shared server. Here are some quick speedtests with speedtest-cli (v2.1.2) with simply first 3 picked servers (one of them is lame). I am currently on mobile connection and moving, max speed promised by ISP for this connection is 150Mbits/50Mbits, used with Huawei P30 Pro over WLAN tethering: Tests without VPN: Magenta (5351) NEXT LAYER (3199) Nessus (3744) Down Up Down up Down up 81.19 Mbits/s 52.73 Mbits/s 122.03 Mbits/s 52.70 Mbits/s 115.75 Mbits/s 51.35 Mbits/s 122.38 Mbits/s 52.55 Mbits/s 116.24 Mbits/s 52.38 Mbits/s 120.33 Mbits/s 52.67 Mbits/s 95.29 Mbits/s 52.56 Mbits/s 121.07 Mbits/s 52.56 Mbits/s 117.33 Mbits/s 52.67 Mbits/s Average: 99.62 Mbits/s 52.61 Mbits/s 119.78 Mbits/s 52.55 Mbits/s 117.80 Mbits/s 52.23 Mbits/s Tests with wireguard VPN Mageta (5351) NEXT LAYER (3199) Nessus (3744) Down Up Down up Down up 97.18 Mbits/s 48.17 Mbits/s 72.79 Mbits/s 48.59 Mbits/s 108.47 Mbits/s 47.93 Mbits/s 84.28 Mbits/s 48.61 Mbits/s 74.23 Mbits/s 48.67 Mbits/s 111.72 Mbits/s 48.74 Mbits/s 96.01 Mbits/s 48.68 Mbits/s 70.69 Mbits/s 46.65 Mbits/s 90.50 Mbits/s 47.92 Mbits/s Average 92.49 Mbits/s 48.49 Mbits/s 72.57 Mbits/s 47.97 Mbits/s 103.56 Mbits/s 48.20 Mbits/s How much loss do does VPN get compared 92.49 Mbits/s 48.49 Mbits/s 72.57 Mbits/s 47.97 Mbits/s 103.56 Mbits/s 48.20 Mbits/s How big is a loss in percentage to results without VPN 7.16 % loss 7.84 % loss 39.41 % loss 8.71 % loss 12.09 % loss 7.72 % loss Having ~7% loss of results compared with no VPN is very good result. As expected wireguard is very good and it is very stable, I moved over 20km during those tests, for quick test it is sufficient, but on stable connection I do think that with same hardware I would get around 7% loss for VPN connections. After testing services it will be funny to test shared servers on some 10Gbit+ network. I also was told wireguard works only with this client, will check it later, I do believe I can copy ip etc.. which I get and check it by using wireguard client, maybe some info of why it is not possible would be usefull to spare me looking up. I did not check netflix and other services but assume them not to work as those ip's with other protocols do not work. I expected the same for wireguard servers listed under the account and for every single of tested netflix and prime (only on LG TV) worked. I also see 2 processes when launching torguard, can you explain why there are two? Maybe I missed it in previous version/s, but I do not remember seeing two processes in my process list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Zaheer Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Support said: Hello, We have a new build with bug fixes and a couple internal changes, now we include a linux build - please test guys, appreciated as a always. ChangeLog: ==================================== - All platforms: Internal changes + Bug fixes - All platforms: Disable legacy Internet Kill Switch - MacOSX: Add Firewall restrictions ==================================== Downloads: Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test.exe Mac: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5f8.test.dmg Linux (x86_64, Ubuntu/Debian) : https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb Linux (x86_64, Fedore/CentOS): https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.rpm Regards TorGuard The NY server on WireGuard don't get connected from Dubai, UAE. It just says "Reconnection" waited for 2 minutes but no connection. So using NJ server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Support Posted August 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 7 minutes ago, Zaheer said: The NY server on WireGuard don't get connected from Dubai, UAE. It just says "Reconnection" waited for 2 minutes but no connection. So using NJ server. I can confirm, will have fixed tomorrow - thanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 I can confirm it too, NewYork is not working right now, other US servers tested and are working. It also requires quite a lot longer for me to connect to UAE server compared to other servers which are not closer to me. There are some other marginal things, warnings etc..., here a QT one: [2020-08-08 2:35:03.893 CEST W] QFontDatabase: Cannot find font directory /opt/torguard/lib/fonts. Note that Qt no longer ships fonts. Deploy some (from https://dejavu-fonts.github.io/ for example) or switch to fontconfig. [2020-08-08 2:41:42.486 CEST D] WhatIsMyLocation/doQueryMyLocation: HTTP request failed: "Host updates.torguard.biz not found" - HTTP error code: 0 After several connect, disconnects my routes are messed up and interface (wlan currently) has to be restarted (or manually restoring/clearing everything). However, I will have to test it on proper connection, current one over wlan tethering with my phone is not ideal for testing, however, it confirms at least that wireguard works properly also in such scenario. That would be it for now, no further errors. @Support is this public info how to use: https://8x.xxx.xxx.xxx:1443/api/v1? If yes, where can I find api call list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Support said: - All platforms: Internal changes + Bug fixes - All platforms: Disable legacy Internet Kill Switch this is misleading statement, it should probably mean "All TG client supported platforms" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Boopa-dee Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Is the Interface kill switch gone for good or is it just for the Beta? since I use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 zerotikin Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 59 minutes ago, Support said: I can confirm, will have fixed tomorrow - thanks Any news about Brazil servers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, zerotikin said: Any news about Brazil servers? Sao Paulo 1 works, Sao Paulo 2 does not for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 zerotikin Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 1 hour ago, 19807409 said: Sao Paulo 1 works, Sao Paulo 2 does not for me. OK thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 jpgk82 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Why not have one thread for the beta and upload pinned/top post as new version released or update in app i am still following this one and only because i seen a thread on reddit i know there is a new beta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 2 hours ago, jpgk82 said: Why not have one thread for the beta and upload pinned/top post as new version released or update in app It actually does not disturb me if linux build is in separate thread from windows one, especially taken in mind that those releases are different by their build number which might mean it is a different test, windows thread is already now much longer with actually less information. On other side you might be right, it would maybe be a better overview for some readers but in real honest, if you have windows you do not want to read pages about linux issues which users might have, same goes other way around, in fact, I would even split Mac version to separate thread and would insist them to release Android beta which would be way more better invested time than moving folders around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 jpgk82 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Yeah if they have a threads for each OS be neater and easier to keep track of new version at relevant to what you have Shame they can't do something where you get update notifications and can update in app. I know not possible if/when android comes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 7 minutes ago, jpgk82 said: Shame they can't do something where you get update notifications and can update in app. Agree on some points, maybe it would not be good to have OS separated, but architecture separated. About update, I do agree about releases which in fact do tell a user about update in TG client. Beta releases should be not notified as available update as it is not stable. Separating channels into development and stable (maybe even more) would let them to notify user on development channel that there is beta update, the one using stable release will be notified only if stable release update is available. As for linux, TG already got a note that they should maybe use some deployment and distribution systems, like snap which in fact lets you use also LivePatch which in fact spares you running update as your snaps are updated in the background, you simply need to relaunch your client and it is always latest available version. Windolls and Mac users do not have ability to run this feature, Windolls SuperDuper devs simply took it out of WSL support some time ago, not sure they will reenable it as everybody would then use linux on windolls without to know it, haha. However, just wanted to let you know that torguard works on that already since some time, dont expect it to be released soon, now this client is priority to get released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 jpgk82 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, 19807409 said: Agree on some points, maybe it would not be good to have OS separated, but architecture separated. About update, I do agree about releases which in fact do tell a user about update in TG client. Beta releases should be not notified as available update as it is not stable. Separating channels into development and stable (maybe even more) would let them to notify user on development channel that there is beta update, the one using stable release will be notified only if stable release update is available. As for linux, TG already got a note that they should maybe use some deployment and distribution systems, like snap which in fact lets you use also LivePatch which in fact spares you running update as your snaps are updated in the background, you simply need to relaunch your client and it is always latest available version. Windolls and Mac users do not have ability to run this feature, Windolls SuperDuper devs simply took it out of WSL support some time ago, not sure they will reenable it as everybody would then use linux on windolls without to know it, haha. However, just wanted to let you know that torguard works on that already since some time, dont expect it to be released soon, now this client is priority to get released. I meant like Windows mac Linux and android in their own thread, OS probably wrong wording I agree about update channel, if needs be in app option or just whatever version is installed can only update to that channel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kratos Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) Windows 10 1) Connecting feels a bit more snappy/fluid. 2) No longer leaking DNS according to dnsleaks.com 3) NYC server still not working. NJ is adequate but quadranet is very inconsistent even with openvpn. 4) When returning from overnight hibernation, the app crashes and icon disappears from system tray on right side taskbar, however the wireguard tunnel is still active as evident by the TG iplocation check in a browser and the log from the Wireguard app. Question for the devs: Is it possible in windows to have the ability to switch wireguard servers and dns servers on the fly like in the Android app? Would be great to be able to right click on the system tray icon and select another wireguard server to connect to or change dns server. What happens if we update the Wireguard app independently of the Torguard installer? Should this not be done and if so will you include a warning in the app? Can't wait to test this on our dedicated streaming/residential IPs. Edited August 8, 2020 by Kratos clarification of dedicated servers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Dedicated servers can be used with wireguard in TG client. Check your logs for wireguard port used (for shared servers it is 1443), then add it as dedicated server. As soon as applied on 10Gbit network and stream/sports/etc.. ip's, then you can add those too, I tested now 10Gbit and stream IP where it is either not enabled or uses different port for now, I guess it is simply not deployed for now on those servers. With that test if wireguard on tg client works with dedicated servers is passed. Hope to see soon 10Gbit and stream ip's enabled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kratos Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Edited original post to clarify my "dedicated ip" comment above. I meant the streaming/residential. I did see that port in the logs and have been using it to connect to a NYC direct IP since the last beta but for some reason the main NYC server (hostname most likely) in the pre-configured drop down doesn't work. Overall I'm impressed with wireguard speed thru TG and can't wait for wireguard to be officially added to pfSense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 @Support how can we test port forwarding? I tested quite a lot, just am not able to test incoming ports (like SIP and alternative HTTP on TCP and RTP/RDP UDP ports). Following tested now on all servers and are working without any issues, calls do not break, everything works perfectly, those are which I kept testing since yesterday: tcp outgoing: 585,993,9001,6881,80,995,587,465,5060,554,21,53,22,143,25,110 udp outgoing: 27005, 7082, 500, 5005, 7078, 53, 5004, 5060,27015,554, 123 I also did not experience any DNS issues except for logging into FICS servers, that is still not possible. For everybody else who wants to test all those things quickly or even in multiple tests, try RTR's speedtest, if you are far away it will not give you full speed but will make those other tests. I actually like them because you can set it up and run multiple tests easily. Single test: https://www.netztest.at/de/Test Repeat mode: https://www.netztest.at/de/Loop @Kratos I agree with you :), I 💘 TorGuard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 Nice, M247 servers work very, very well with my ISP and wireguard. ISP gives 250/50, normally it pends between 200-240 on download and 47-49 on upload. Speedtest shows quite amazing result , I made few which result again in being faster than the max. provided by my ISP: So, to compare it I launched RTR repeating test and bang, it is even faster and more stable, waiting it to complete and will post the endresult, but first 3 are quite stable: Here are links for those first 4: In fact, here TorGuard connection with wireguard boosts my max. possible speed provided by my ISP by 5-15% here where if no VPN is used, ISP gives only 80-90% of prommised speed, it spikes rarely over 95% and is never over 98%. Difference is 15-35% boost compared to real speeds which ISP offers, hehe, my ISP seems to need some more staff, this clearly is on their cap Here is Open-User-UUID where you can see all those tests when they finish so I can spare posting/updating this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 19807409 Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 @Support despite different attempts to delete the image on the bottom of last post it still appears to me, please delete it if you can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Zaheer Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 On 8/8/2020 at 1:51 AM, Support said: Hello, We have a new build with bug fixes and a couple internal changes, now we include a linux build - please test guys, appreciated as a always. ChangeLog: ==================================== - All platforms: Internal changes + Bug fixes - All platforms: Disable legacy Internet Kill Switch - MacOSX: Add Firewall restrictions ==================================== Downloads: Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test.exe Mac: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5f8.test.dmg Linux (x86_64, Ubuntu/Debian) : https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb Linux (x86_64, Fedore/CentOS): https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.rpm Regards TorGuard On MacOS 10.15.6 so far Beta 2 version has no bugs, for the past 2 days of usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 kx9134 Posted August 9, 2020 Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 I can't seem to get wireguard to show for me despite enabling it in the settings. I'm on Linux mint. Is it because my kernel is not 5.6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Support
Hello,
We have a new build with bug fixes and a couple internal changes, now we include a linux build - please test guys, appreciated as a always.
ChangeLog:
====================================
- All platforms: Internal changes + Bug fixes
- All platforms: Disable legacy Internet Kill Switch
- MacOSX: Add Firewall restrictions
====================================
Downloads:
Windows: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-setup-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test.exe
Mac: https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/TorGuard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5f8.test.dmg
Linux (x86_64, Ubuntu/Debian) : https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.deb
Linux (x86_64, Fedore/CentOS): https://torguard.net/downloads/beta/torguard-v3.99.4-pre.87+gc6865c5.test-amd64.rpm
Regards
TorGuard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
37 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.