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

ExpressVPN employees complain about ex-spy's top role at company

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–175 of 175 posts

Re: ExpressVPN employees complain about ex-spy's top role at company

#171

Post by ftobin »

elagost wrote: post #2

It's been clear for a long time that every single commercial VPN service is a waste of money. At best, you replace trusting your ISP with trusting a different group of unknown people with similar motivations. At worst, it's a government agency honeypot or someone like Facebook. If you think you want a VPN for "privacy", use Tor Browser. If you want a VPN for any other reason that "normal people" think they want a VPN…

I believe Mozilla's contract with Cloudflare to provide Firefox Private Network provides great value, and I've been happy with it service for quite some time. Mozilla and Cloudflare are both well known organizations, and Mozilla acting as a buyer's agent is a good position to be in.

Re: ExpressVPN employees complain about ex-spy's top role at company

#172

Post by ftobin »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #94

Does cloudflare WARP not work? Or AWS self hosted VPN?

I think WARP is a great value proposition for the use case of avoiding ISP sniffing. I use Firefox Private Network which leverages WARP, and as an added bonus, does not disclose my IP (unlike plain WARP).

Re: ExpressVPN employees complain about ex-spy's top role at company

#173

Post by fomine3 »

elagost wrote: post #76
weinzierl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for a moment close your eyes and imagine a world where you have to fill-in a mildly complicated form before you visit a website (or blindly sign away whatever rights you might have had). A world where every second funny video you might have found on Reddit leaves you with a cryptic message that some "rights holder" doesn't permit you to see it (and denies you from joining the fun everyone else seems to be having…

Ok. Use a proxy, or set up your own Proxy/VPN on a VPS? Then you also have a VPS - you can host your own website there, use it to download stuff and rsync it back to your local machine, deploy nextcloud, etc., all for less than the cost of ExpressVPN. And bonus points, you can use unlimited devices.

Set up your own Proxy/VPN on a VPS, is bad for fingerprint perspective. You get static IP in rare IP range for consumers. Pirating is also meaningless unless you use special hosting provider.

Re: ExpressVPN employees complain about ex-spy's top role at company

#174

Post by alimbada »

saurik wrote: post #165
alimbada wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The machine I tend to use for connecting runs headless and a recent change in Mysterium has made it so that once I connect to their network I'm disconnected from that machine on the local network. Not sure if it's a feature of split tunneling that normally allows this behaviour. I might have my terminology wrong.

Ah ha! Ok, I wouldn't have called that split tunneling myself (but maybe I should have: I am totally willing to believe that I should). (That sane issue happens with Orchid's tooling by default--on a desktop it is somewhat easy to fix with another manual route, which you can probably also use with Mysterium, but on mobile as a user you don't have many options. I was actually going to be fixing that for our next updat…

I gave the manual route a go with Mysterium but it didn't help. Thanks for the tip anyway. I'll wait until they've fixed the issue. I'd try out Orchid but I can't see a Windows client.

Re: ExpressVPN employees complain about ex-spy's top role at company

#175

Post by simiones »

sxg wrote: post #135
monocasa wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VPN A only sees that the request is going to VPN B.

But VPN A has to relay the request for facebook.com to VPN B, meaning that VPN A has to be aware of the user's final destination. If my interpretation of this is incorrect, then how does VPN B become aware of the request for facebook.com?

VPN A receives a packet that says "carry this (encrypted_ payload to VPN B Gateway IP". VPN B Gateway receives that packet and decrypts the payload. The payload says "send this (encrypted) payload from VPN A customer IP to facebook.com".
Post reply on HN