I hope I’m not the only one who thinks Mullvad VPN needs to add support for more obfuscation methods. At my school, they block all built-in (in the Mullvad client) methods. To me, this means they need to add more or better methods. I want to know what other people have to say about this because you can’t connect to Mullvad at coffee shops or school, which are both big reasons for buying a VPN.
Please tell me your thoughts on this.
Mullvad has built-in proxy support for VPN obfuscation.
You can login to Mulvad on the web and download the .config file for the server (I would recommend either 443 or 123 as the port) and use the Wireguard app to set up the server.
I’f on the mullvad browser turn off the encrypted proxied location via the xtension, and shadow socks ot UDP over TCP should fine
My school also blocks all VPNs, for me both obfuscation methodes work (Shadowsocks and UDP-over-TCP)
What do you mean more methods? The de-facto ones are OpenVPN and Wireguard, which work for 99% of the people out there. They also have proxy and reverse-proxy ways to connect to/from a VPN, and IIRC they also offer Shadowsocks. Not sure what else would you need tho.
I don’t understand. I’m always connected with mullvad server over wireguard and never had problems
I think this is only for OpenVPN and not for WireGuard
The problem I am having is that the API can connect to Mullvad’s server but the VPN can’t. I have access to the list of all servers but I can’t connect to any of them. I will try this, thanks for posting
I mean adding more methods such as v2ray VMESS/QUIC because other VPNS like iVPN all ready have this for WireGuard, putting Mullvad behind them in this. Shadowsocks is too common now and is starting to be blocked same with UDP-Over-TCP.
You might just be lucky but once your usage is detected by certain apps like Reddit or banking apps, you get ip blocked and need to change servers or turn off the vpn. At least in my experience.
Well, OpenVPN is universal and works on many platforms. Clearly, it’s slower and less secure. Nonetheless, it’s a viable option.
But that’s the crux of the matter. It’s governments/companies/sites that do the blocking, so as long as they keep on doing it there won’t be an end to it, though I agree with your suggestion.
But that was not the question. Or I got it wrong.
OP said that the wifi owner blocks the vpn!?
… until mullvad stops supporting open vpn at the end of 2025. We need better built in wire guard obfuscation ASAP if it’s the only protocol left at three end of this year
I agree with you, there will be no end to it but this is also why Mullvad needs to stay ahead of the blocking.
Essentially the same thing. VPN usage is detected because less obfuscation in wg.
Wireguard can be obfuscated using wstunnel: Obfuscating WireGuard using Wstunnel
I agree with you, this needs to happen soon before the only protocol that works with proxies is removed, Mullvad needs to add this to WireGuard, they also should add built-in SSH tunneling and v2ray to WireGuard.
Not the same thing at all. Obfuscation is intended for internal usage, like when your ISP or a system administrator (work, school etc) prevents your device from connecting to the VPN server.
Obfuscation has absolutely no effect on websites detecting whether you use a VPN or not.