Linux (dmesg | grep wireguard) is WireGuard 1.0.0 the correct version?

Help
1

It seems that NETDATA installs WireGuard 1.0.0. I am thinking this is how host data is securely tunneled to the NETDATA cloud to be displayed.

Is 1.0.0 really the version being used? Is this correct?

2

Hello @Mark could you please be more specific how netdata installed wireguard. When you run kickstart and you get either stale or nightly netdata asks for wireguard package?

3

We would just run the add node script for Linux:
wget -O /tmp/netdata-kickstart.sh https://get.netdata.cloud/kickstart.sh && sh /tmp/netdata-kickstart.sh --nightly-channel --claim-token --claim-rooms --claim-url https://app.netdata.cloud

after that we noticed the WireGuard 1.0.0 message.

To uninstall I believe we ran:
wget -O /tmp/netdata-kickstart.sh https://get.netdata.cloud/kickstart.sh && sh /tmp/netdata-kickstart.sh --uninstall

and then WireGuard message was gone after reboot

I hope this helps!

4

@Tasos_Katsoulas
I can replicate this too on Ubuntu Server 23.10.
Deploy brand new VM and all updates: no wireguard message.
Install Netdata via kickstarter script which is installing the prebuilt packages and right as the install ends we get the message:

[  116.693087] wireguard: WireGuard 1.0.0 loaded. See www.wireguard.com for information.
[  116.693100] wireguard: Copyright (C) 2015-2019 Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>. All Rights Reserved.
5

Hi, @Mark.

It seems that NETDATA installs WireGuard 1.0.0.

No. Netdata doesn’t install WireGuard 1.0.0.

I am thinking this is how host data is securely tunneled to the NETDATA cloud to be displayed.

No. Netdata doesn’t use WireGuard to communicate with Netdata Cloud but ACLK.

6

Netdata has WireGuard collector. On Linux, it uses netlink/rtnetlink to get a list of WG interfaces and query their stats if any. This, I think, results in loading the WG kernel module. It is a part of the Linux kernel. Even if I missed something, my previous answer was correct - “no” to both OP questions.

7

Yup! That is the exact same message we are seeing as well on our Debian systems. Our first curiosity is the “1.0.0” part and if that is in fact the actual version number.