Not sure why you'd vibe-code a new VPN protocol, double ratchet or otherwise, when you can just take WireGuard and make a new transport for it.
WireGuard by itself is not a stealth VPN, but the things that make a VPN "stealthy" are all things you'd layer on top of a WireGuard design, not thread through the middle of it. A datagram-based protocol can run under any obscured transport.
We did this at Fly.io when we discovered that, for one reason or another, 5% of our users simply couldn't reliably use UDP. It was a one-day project to run it under WebSockets instead, and that was before coding agents.
Wireguard is both really useful ans pretty frustrating as a user. As a developer it's amazing that you can do things like relay packets through a bouncer with authentication to get around NAT without ever having to think about the protocol level safety, as a user it's near impossible to configure without the confused "why are no packets working", and as you had here it just doesn't make it through a lot of restrictive networking conditions.
The parent is obviously just Claude making a fancy website and some sort of unreviewed networking protocol that's dressed up to look as if it's a real project. Github really needs to start showing commit cadence and repo birthdates.
> We believe privacy should be proven, not promised
Then instantly gives you a shell script that it pipes to `sudo bash`. The irony isn't lost here.
That's also the cost of providing convenience AND something that can open port 443
Also the suggested installation method of at least: rust, bun, uv, deno, and homebrew
Such a tired trope. If you want to do it the hard way, you are welcome to build by hand https://github.com/PDG-Global/rVPN-core#building
Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean it's right.
There's only 4 mentions of Rust on the landing page. Are we sure this is memory safe enough?