Maybe this could help: https://github.com/kizzx2/docker-wireguard-socks-proxy
> Le 9 oct. 2020 à 15:26, Max R. P. Grossmann <m...@max.pm> a écrit : > > Another idea would be to install WireGuard in a (tiny) virtual machine or a > VPS and then ssh into that machine using > > ssh -TD9151 u...@example.com > > This creates a SOCKS5 proxy on port 9151. > > Then, for example, you could create two Firefox profiles; one without a proxy > (for the uncensored websites) and another that utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy on > port 9151. The SOCKS5 proxy exposed by ssh will route all traffic over your > virtual machine (example.com above), which will in turn route it through > WireGuard. > > Since ssh can now be natively used under Windows, I'd be surprised if its -D > option were not available. AFAIR, Putty can also do something similar. > > Best, > > Max > > On 20/10/04 03:41pm, Rudi C wrote: >> I use Wireguard to circumvent Iran's censorship. A major problem with >> it is that it's very hard to selectively proxy specific domains/apps >> through Wireguard, while leaving others alone. This is an essential >> feature for Iran's internet, as: >> 1. The connection is terrible, so avoiding using the proxy for >> uncensored sites helps a lot. >> 2. International traffic is 2x more expensive, so avoiding the proxy >> for internal traffic is very beneficial. >> 3. Some internal sites ban international IPs and need Iranian IPs. >> >> The easiest way to solve this program, as far as I understand, is to >> add the ability to expose the tunnel as a socks5 proxy on the client >> side. This is the approach that shadowsocks, v2ray, etc have adopted. >> There are mature solutions to selectively routing traffic through a >> socks proxy. >> >> I searched around, and there are docker containers that already do >> this wireguard-to-socks thing; But running docker is expensive on a >> non-Linux machine, so it'd be much appreciated if you could support >> exposing socks and HTTP proxy servers natively.
