Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 345 posts

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#121

Post by InCityDreams »

lxgr wrote: post #55
lionkor wrote: post #5

Full title: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant. Customer data not compromised As a customer, I have no doubt about the "customer data not compromised". I'm a paying customer, yet I have never given them any PII. Great service.

> I'm a paying customer, yet I have never given them any PII. By nature, every VPN gets at least the IP you are connecting from and the IPs (and almost always also hostnames) you are connecting to. I'd consider that PII.

If you pay cash, and use the service the pii is 2 IP numbers?

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#122

Post by azalemeth »

panick21_ wrote: post #107
coconut08 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mullvad has time and again shown itself to be one of if not the best actors in the entire vpn space, but you still have no real way of knowing if they are being honest. also their business definitely doesn't depend on being honest or standing for their values. there are plenty of vpn's who run on fake marketing that give the impression that they have certain values and do certain things while actually not doing it an…

mullvad is working on a fireware attestation system that can allow clients to verify the exact version of the software running on the server. But I think this is not fully deployed. https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/1/12/diskless-infrastructur...

This is also one of the very few uses of remote attestation that I support as a consumer.

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#123

Post by ementally »

robjan wrote: post #113
fareesh wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an app phones home at 11:00 AM and the illegal act is at 11:01 AM wouldn't it narrow down the list of suspects considerably?

No, because at the same time x number of users have their apps phoning home with what appears to be the same IP

How can you be sure that you are the only one in your country not connected to the same IP address provided by a VPN server?

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#124

Post by nabla9 »

bragr wrote: post #95
hnarn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically they could have been logging your traffic Of course they “could have” but their entire business depends on them not doing it.

That's a specious argument, because the choice could be between logging your traffic and being forced to shutdown under some kind of Swedish NSL, or forced to keep operating and logging even if they want to shut down. Not saying this is what happened, just that your reasoning doesn't really hold. Hell it's entirely possible Mullvad is a honeypot operated by some foreign intelligence service.

There is no such laws in Sweden.

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#126

Post by ementally »

pedro_hab wrote: post #71

I don't understand why go after the VPN, I think most people don't use a VPN correctly. What good is a VPN when multiple apps on your computer are phoning home? If the law has a suspect IP, couldn't they just ask google, microsoft and facebook what accounts were accessed with that IP? To use a VPN correctly wouldn't have to use a fresh OS and absolutely not login to any accounts connected to the IP you are trying to…

If your ISP suspects your IP address (can see your are connected to specific VPN server) they can just contact top websites, example: twitter, facebook or google and ask them if there are any users connected with the same IP at given specific time.

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#127

Post by password4321 »

input_sh wrote: post #119
tsukikage wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did notice that phrase doing a lot of work there. I'm actually super curious: when a bunch of goons turn up on your doorstep fully expecting to cart away boxes of electronics, /how on earth/ do you "demonstrate that this is indeed how our service works", there and then on the spot, in a sufficiently convincing manner that they leave again empty-handed?

They've invested a lot of resources in what they call "diskless infrastructure", as in everything's in server's RAM. I presume it wouldn't be difficult to argue that as soon as you shut off a server to transfer it away, things they're looking for would be lost.

HotPlug allows hot seizure and removal of computers from the field

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=982930 (2009)

https://wiebetech.com/products/hotplug-field-kit/

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#128

Post by shever73 »

kklimonda wrote: post #62
CodesInChaos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you pay?

They also have vouchers you can buy from Amazon, which I find a nice alternative to sending cash in an envelope.

If you care about privacy, then Amazon is the last company I would buy from. From personal experience, I would be far more concerned about what Amazon does with your data than Mullvad.

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#129

Post by Ansik »

bingobongodude wrote: post #45

Mullvad has been very outspoken against the proposed "Chatcontrol" law. I suspect retaliation. Just my 2 cents. https://mullvad.net/en/chatcontrol

If it had actually been in retaliation they'd left with the severs no matter if they contained anything of value, as with pirate bay

Re: Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

#130

Post by mthoms »

formerly_proven wrote: post #96
sdrinf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Briefly, law requires establishing probable cause, that _one_ specific person has done specific things, to underwrite search warrant. VPN IPs are shared between users, meaning any one of the ~X00 users sharing a single ip could be doing any number of things at the same time.

Briefly, non-US jurisdictions are not US jurisdictions and have different standards and procedures.

I think the comment was made under the assumption the user lives in a place with a reasonably fair legal system. Of course all bets are off if you don't.
Post reply on HN