From the features page:
> We use only VPN protocols which are known to be secure - IKEv2/IPSec and OpenVPN.
If you want to use Wireguard, consider Mullvad.
> We use only VPN protocols which are known to be secure - IKEv2/IPSec and OpenVPN.
If you want to use Wireguard, consider Mullvad.
>protonvpn 1 point 6 days ago
>Thanks for your suggestion, we will consider this. We will plan to implement Wireguard as a protocol by the end of this year.
[1]https://old.reddit.com/r/ProtonVPN/comments/eo2k9m/eta_on_wi...
As of Oct 2019, no updated status: https://protonvpn.com/blog/wireguard-donation/#comment-9236
> but I don't see why any of those features can't be added upstream to a FOSS OpenVPN client/server
Could be simply because none allows this in the first place. And then the selection may be very service-dependent.
In any case, their app is now open source, so why is this an issue anyway?
My issue is that countless VPN companies are re-inventing the wheel, when they could just be contributing to open-source in the first place. It's obviously in their best interests from a security & trust standpoint to start from an already open & well-audited platform. Everyone wins when bugs are squashed and new features are added; and the licensing lets them keep their branding/ui for the app they deploy.
Marketing (by being in app-stores, and thus gaining visibility & being suggested for 'users like you')?