Wrap lines

1 files changed, 48 insertions, 47 deletions

diff --git a/pages/about-us/news/2020/wireguard.md b/pages/about-us/news/2020/wireguard.md
index 6aee166..4fb0b8d 100644
--- a/pages/about-us/news/2020/wireguard.md
+++ b/pages/about-us/news/2020/wireguard.md
@@ -4,69 +4,70 @@
 @more = true
 @preview_image = '/img/pages/wireguard.png'
 
-Our VPN is built on top of [OpenVPN](https://openvpn.net/), a well tested and 
-widely used technology that has been around for almost two decades. As most 
-software with enough history it has grown with a lot of features and code 
-complexity. This is great as it has everything that we need to provide a stable 
-service, but at the same time it brings now and then security issues. The 
+Our VPN is built on top of [OpenVPN](https://openvpn.net/), a well tested and
+widely used technology that has been around for almost two decades. As most
+software with enough history it has grown with a lot of features and code
+complexity. This is great as it has everything that we need to provide a stable
+service, but at the same time it brings now and then security issues. The
 OpenVPN team has been really good at handling them in a timely manner and in
-LEAP we've been lucky to have designed our VPN in a way that prevented us from 
+LEAP we've been lucky to have designed our VPN in a way that prevented us from
 being affected by most of the ones that have appeared in the last years.
 
-Since a few years there is a newcomer to the free software VPNs: 
-[WireGuard](https://wireguard.com/). WireGuard uses nice modern cryptography 
-primitives, a pretty simple protocol and has a small code base. This makes it a very
-fast VPN and probably less prone to security issues.
+Since a few years there is a newcomer to the free software VPNs:
+[WireGuard](https://wireguard.com/). WireGuard uses nice modern cryptography
+primitives, a pretty simple protocol and has a small code base. This makes it a
+very fast VPN and probably less prone to security issues.
 
-If WireGuard is so great why don't we ditch OpenVPN and use WireGuard instead? 
-WireGuard is great, but (yes, there is always a "but") it wasn't designed for 
+If WireGuard is so great why don't we ditch OpenVPN and use WireGuard instead?
+WireGuard is great, but (yes, there is always a "but") it wasn't designed for
 our use cases and it is not trivial to make it work for us.
 
-WireGuard uses UDP, which is great for speed. But many of our users are in 
-networks that don't allow UDP traffic and for them to be able to connect we need 
-the VPN to support TCP. We are currently using OpenVPN on TCP mode, but our plan 
-for the future is to dynamically use UDP if available and if not to fall back to 
-TCP.
+WireGuard uses UDP, which is great for speed. But many of our users are in
+networks that don't allow UDP traffic and for them to be able to connect we
+need the VPN to support TCP. We are currently using OpenVPN on TCP mode, but
+our plan for the future is to dynamically use UDP if available and if not to
+fall back to TCP.
 
-Some time ago there was a discussion about [TCP support in the wireguard mailing 
-list](https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-March/002496.html), with 
-proposed solutions like using 
-[ssf](https://github.com/securesocketfunneling/ssf), 
-[socat](http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/) or 
+Some time ago there was a discussion about [TCP support in the wireguard
+mailing
+list](https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-March/002496.html), with
+proposed solutions like using
+[ssf](https://github.com/securesocketfunneling/ssf),
+[socat](http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/) or
 [udptunnel](http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~lennox/udptunnel/). All of them sound
 a bit hacky, one extra moving piece that can break.
 
-Another problem is that WireGuard doesn't provide dynamic IP allocation. We 
-don't know in advance who will be connected to assign static IPs to each client. 
-We rely on OpenVPN to do it dynamically each time a client connects. In WireGuard
-we would need to build some tooling around to do all this IP assignment without 
-the service operators getting the possibility to correlate users and clients to 
-IPs.
+Another problem is that WireGuard doesn't provide dynamic IP allocation. We
+don't know in advance who will be connected to assign static IPs to each
+client.  We rely on OpenVPN to do it dynamically each time a client connects.
+In WireGuard we would need to build some tooling around to do all this IP
+assignment without the service operators getting the possibility to correlate
+users and clients to IPs.
 
-Besides all these technical issues there is a security issue, the authentication 
-protocol of WireGuard is not Forward Secret. That means an observer recording 
-all conversations only need to wait until the server long term secret key gets 
-compromised to be able to figure out which client produced each connection. Let 
-me remark, this doesn't mean that the attacker can decrypt the traffic, they 
-only see the authentication key, so they can pinpoint a client being the same in 
-different connections.
+Besides all these technical issues there is a security issue, the
+authentication protocol of WireGuard is not Forward Secret. That means an
+observer recording all conversations only need to wait until the server long
+term secret key gets compromised to be able to figure out which client produced
+each connection. Let me remark, this doesn't mean that the attacker can decrypt
+the traffic, they only see the authentication key, so they can pinpoint a
+client being the same in different connections.
 
-While this is a flaw, it is clearly an improvement over TLS 1.2 with client 
-certificates, which we are currently using with OpenVPN. Previously to TLS 1.3 
-(the latest version) if you authenticate the clients using a cert, which we use 
-to avoid having a list of users, the cert is sent unencrypted. That means that 
-currently an observer does not even need a compromised server private key to 
-track the users. We do minimize that by rotating the cert frequently and we are 
-preparing a migration to TLS 1.3, that solves this problem by transferring the 
+While this is a flaw, it is clearly an improvement over TLS 1.2 with client
+certificates, which we are currently using with OpenVPN. Previously to TLS 1.3
+(the latest version) if you authenticate the clients using a cert, which we use
+to avoid having a list of users, the cert is sent unencrypted. That means that
+currently an observer does not even need a compromised server private key to
+track the users. We do minimize that by rotating the cert frequently and we are
+preparing a migration to TLS 1.3, that solves this problem by transferring the
 cert over a forward secret channel.
 
-The dynamic IP allocation and the lack of forward secrecy for client identifiers 
-are being worked on in a separate tool named
-[wg-dynamic](https://git.zx2c4.com/wg-dynamic/about/docs/idea.md) which
-does handle the IP allocation and rotates the client identifier. So maybe in the 
+The dynamic IP allocation and the lack of forward secrecy for client
+identifiers are being worked on in a separate tool named
+[wg-dynamic](https://git.zx2c4.com/wg-dynamic/about/docs/idea.md) which does
+handle the IP allocation and rotates the client identifier. So maybe in the
 future those will be solved when wg-dynamic becomes more mature.
 
 Right now for us adopting WireGuard would require a lot of development work to
-get around those issues and to get a new technology stable enough to be used in 
+get around those issues and to get a new technology stable enough to be used in
 production. We already have our hands full maintaining the existing service and
 prefer to prioritize our energies on providing a more stable and smooth VPN.