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

VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

ipinfo.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 333 posts

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#151

Post by [deleted] »

ggrantrowberry wrote: post #127
devilbunny wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have friends or family in your home country that will run an AppleTV box with Tailscale for you as an exit node? I can't get into work from a non-US IP, but I can Tailscale back to my house and it works just fine. I even gave my in-laws (who live several states away) an AppleTV box running TS just to have another endpoint if for some reason the power goes out at my house while I'm gone (rare, but happens).

What is this AppleTV box running TS that you speak of? Sounds awesome.

[deleted]

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#152

Post by fragmede »

rileymat2 wrote: post #133
____tom____ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this really work? I would think the ping time would not be dominated by speed of light, but by number of hops, and connection quality. As a hypothetical example, an IP in a New York City data center is likely to have a shorted ping to a London data center, than a rural New York IP address.

The speed of light sets a minimum bound even if you don't account for that, and these are coming up less than the minimum bound. It also reminds me of this old story: https://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles

That is a great one!

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#153

Post by ThatMedicIsASpy »

godelski wrote: post #122
pzmarzly wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally, Mullvad, Windscribe and IVPN all worked when I was in China behind GFW, while more popular options did not. Seems like there are VPNs, and then there are VPNs.

I'm a bit curious about how that works. I love Mullvad but routinely I find sites like Reddit completely block it. Even yesterday someone posted a Debian wiki link[0] and I was blocked. It's not all of them but Reddit is a big killer. So I thought China would block all of them (aren't they known?) Fwiw I'm not switching from mullvad [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252366

my current mullvad endpoint seems to be blocked by flathub (blocking package updates). nixos wiki is also blocked

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#154

Post by balder1991 »

tallytarik wrote: post #113

Most of these providers are in fact open about the fact that these locations are “virtual”, so it’s misleading to say they don’t match where they claim to be. There is however an interesting question about how VPNs should be considered from a geolocation perspective. Should they record where the exit server is located, or the country claimed by the VPN (even if this is a “virtual” location)? In my view there is usefu…

Yeah, Proton is quite explicit about that: https://protonvpn.com/support/how-smart-routing-works

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#155

Post by Forgeties79 »

HotGarbage wrote: post #16
why-o-why wrote: post #11

I tried to use ProtonVPN when I switched over to ProtonMail a year ago. But so much of the web does not work when you're on a VPN. For example even HackerNews has VPN restrictions. More and more sites know where VPN endpoints originate. How will VPNs prevent this in the future without them just become easy to block?

Apple, for better or worse, has been able to use their size to pressure sites into accepting connections from their Private Relay service. If VPN usage becomes the norm, sites will have to give in eventually.

My bank app forces me to turn my VPN off. I’m not going to change my bank over that and I imagine most others do the same anyway or will eventually. I imagine many sites and services will just continue go “we’re gonna break this thing you need until you turn the vpn off.”

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#156

Post by prosody »

ignoramous wrote: post #76
reimertz wrote: post #13

I know multiple people who worked / working at Mullvad and they take their business, security and privacy _very_ seriously. Not surprised to see them shine here.

Windscribe and iVPN up there with Mullvad in TFA. > Mullvad ... security and privacy _very_ seriously. Not surprised to see them shine here. ? TFA reflects on dishonest marketing on part of public VPN providers more than privacy / security. That said, VPNs don't add much security, though, they are useful for geo unblocking content and (at some level) anti-censorship. In my experience, the mainstream public VPNs don't…

Advertising a VPN endpoint in country A which in reality is in country B is a security concern for users trying to reduce their visibility to country B’s authorities. You’re right about the more fit to purpose tools, of course, but they’re more of an impediment to normal internet usage.

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#157

Post by boneitis »

coppsilgold wrote: post #56
why-o-why wrote: post #11

I tried to use ProtonVPN when I switched over to ProtonMail a year ago. But so much of the web does not work when you're on a VPN. For example even HackerNews has VPN restrictions. More and more sites know where VPN endpoints originate. How will VPNs prevent this in the future without them just become easy to block?

As VPN usage proliferates such discrimination starts hurting sites more. For example, a VPN may be left on by a user for whatever reason and when the site they visit doesn't work or makes them jump through hoops they are less likely to visit the site in the future or view it with contempt and abandon it a soon as they are made aware of an alternative. It takes time for sites to realize the danger, especially with mob…

> less likely to visit the site in the future or view it with contempt and abandon it a soon

> fiddling with a VPN is often more hassle than its worth and its just left always on.

Not to saying this is wholly preferable, but I have often found this to be beneficial for me in that it tends to deter me from wasting disproportionate amounts of time on crap web content (either that, or HN wins over that remaining browsing time when it's not blocking me :)

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#158

Post by khannn »

why-o-why wrote: post #11

I tried to use ProtonVPN when I switched over to ProtonMail a year ago. But so much of the web does not work when you're on a VPN. For example even HackerNews has VPN restrictions. More and more sites know where VPN endpoints originate. How will VPNs prevent this in the future without them just become easy to block?

ProtonVPN stinks. Websites refuse to load and I get autobanned on Reddit etc.

Mullvad just worked everywhere. I'm going back when my year plan on Proton ends.

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#159

Post by balder1991 »

kelvindegrees wrote: post #142
radicality wrote: post #138

Oh wow, I had no idea that “virtual location” is even a thing. Imo it should not, I don’t even see a use case for that, it just seems like straight-up lying about the traffic exit location. Glad to see the provider I occasionally use, Mullvad, passed the test.

Yeah, I'm really not seeing how a "virtual location" is any different from outright fraud.

It depends on whether the VPN is lying to you. Proton, for example, makes them quite explicit in the software and even lists them for you here: https://protonvpn.com/support/how-smart-routing-works and seems like NordVPN also has a page explaining that.

Re: VPN location claims don't match real traffic exits

#160

Post by balder1991 »

Papazsazsa wrote: post #4

Cool, even our privacy protection is fraught with scammers and liars.

Actually, most VPN providers explicitly label the virtual locations as such, I think the famous ones at least do it (ex: Proton and NordVPN even explain them in their respective docs).
Post reply on HN