Privacy @lemmy.ml u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org) @lemmy.sdf.org 6 days ago

Mullvad plans to remove support for OpenVPN in little over a year, on 2026-01-15

mullvad.net Removing OpenVPN 15th January 2026 | Mullvad VPN

We are removing support for OpenVPN, it will be completely removed on 15th January 2026.

Support will be removed on both client and server side.

The process of removing OpenVPN from our app starts today and may be completed much earlier.

Mullvad VPN + Browser @ lemmy.dbzer0.com @lemmy.dbzer0.com Nemeski @lemm.ee 5 days ago

Removing OpenVPN 15th January 2026

mullvad.net /en/blog/removing-openvpn-15th-january-2026

54 comments

TL;DR They are moving to wireguard only.

I'm ok with that.
- Except the 5 device limit. With OVPN it means 5 connected devices, with WG it means 5 registered public keys.
  
  Say you use the official Mullvad app and also setup some 3rd party WG client on your phone. That's now taking up 2 devices. Or perhaps you do have 6 devices, but you never have more than 2 of them running at once. With WG, that's still 6 devices regardless of them being connected or not, while with OVPN it will indeed be just 2 devices.
  
  That's true. I use user profiles on GrapheneOS and have to have each profile count as its own device in Mullvad, when obviously I'm not going to be using them simultaneously.
  
  Can you not use the same keys for multiple devices like you'd normally be able to?
  
  This is a great point, if they're gonna make this change, they should allow unlimited keys (or at least more than 5) and just limit the number of simultaneous devices on wireguard too. If that's feasable
  
  That's a pity.
  
  Is there something preventing you from having the same key ready for use on more than one device? So that two devices that are never connected at the same time can take turns using the same key?
  
  One of my devices uses three keys because out of the two local servers I have, they seem to go down every other month, so I need a failover.
  
  It just sounds easier to think about it with wireguard then. No surprises.
  
  I can only assume that is the main reason for this change. Pitty.
- Wireguard is more elegant and performant, and has a smaller attack surface. OpenVPN, meanwhile, is a legacy protocol, and retiring it should be a good thing.
  
  And when exactly did we declare openvpn a legacy protocol?
- Can someone explain why this is good or bad?
- Not great if you use the transmission-openvpn docker container. Guess I need to come up with a new plan.
  
  Why not use a qbittorrent WireGuard one?
  
  There's also Transmission-Wireguard by the same guy.
  
  sometimes people keep a container for the vpn/proxy, and set up the other one to use the network of the other container
- It was good to have it as a backup. I primarily use wireguard but now its a single point of failure.
If wire guard is just bettr then I don't see any reason to suport OpenVPN anyway.
- Legacy devices with OpenVPN support only.
- i can't get wire guard to work on my home network so it is not better for me
  
  edit: to be fair my internet connection is being tapped and recorded by law enforcement so i am assuming that is the problem.
  
  Is that with any vpn provider? or hosting your own? And that is kind of a shame I guess you just won't be able to use Mullvad vpn, good thing there are heaps of other options.
  
  How are you trying to using WG? I had issues with wg quick up or whatever it is, not bothered to check, but adding wireguard connections as NetworkManager interfaces works flawlessly for me.
- I can't get WG to work in Qubes. OpenVPN just works
  
  That's kind of weird, because the reason why I never bothered with (selfhosted) VPNs before Wireguard was because it was the first one that just worked. Granted, due to its nature, you don't get a lot of feedback when things don't work, but it's so simple in principle that there's not a lot that can go wrong. For external VPNs like this, it should just be: Load config, double-check, done.
any good wireguard documenation? only found few random company blog, some stackoverflow and reddit.
Why tho?
- Wireguard is the gold standard?
  
  i thought it is the closed standard
- (linked in the above article) https://mullvad.net/en/blog/wireguard-future
Are they going to fix their client so it can work on linux with software like portmaster that controls DNS?

https://github.com/safing/portmaster/issues/445

https://wiki.safing.io/en/Portmaster/App/Compatibility/Software/MullvadVPN
- I doubt it. Portmaster has a relatively small share of users, and I bet it would be a waste of their resources to try to pin down a bug that is outside the scope of their client's normal functionality.
  
  Best option is to try to fix it yourself and submit a pull request or hope somebody else does it.
  
  Thank you for the tip. It is not necessarily a bug is my understating is that mullvad controls DNS for pirvacy/security issue. So it makes sense from mass market perspective. So this would be more of a feature request.
  
  Never thought of trying to do myseld. I am not an IT guy but FAFO always been my MO lol
Well thats the day I stop using them wtf
- Why? Wireguard i a great protocol and Mullvad best in class with regards to privacy.
  
  Because openvpn works easier in complex setups like Qubes or Ubiquity
cringe move, i'll use riseup through openvpn

You've viewed 54 comments.