61–70 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! that blog post had a thread here: Trust, 2-Party Relays, and QUIC - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43016574 - Feb 2025 (33 comments)
That blog needs some inline padding for mobile view.
You’re absolutely right, we fixed it and forgot to push to prod XP
The sole meaningful VPN is the one you host yourself to connect personal stuff around the world in a sole network. For privacy I2P etc performances are not enough for normal use, the rest is mere noise. That's IMVHO the substance, not counting the fact that even a secure channel is meaningless if you run proprietary crapware at their end.
Wanna know about something cool? Tor i offers real untraceable anonymity and is 100% free.
[flagged]
1) you didn't read path selection constraints: https://spec.torproject.org/path-spec/path-selection-constra...
>We do not choose more than one router in a given network range, which defaults to /16 for IPv4 and /32 for IPv6. (C Tor overrides this with EnforceDistinctSubnets; Arti overrides this with ipv[46]_subnet_family_prefix.)
2) There is currently no exit-node hosted at Hetzner. Check the Tor atlas
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That blog needs some inline padding for mobile view.
It's insane to me that this even has to be pointed out with such a relatively simple page, and then I looked at the source; it screams "I'm gonna just bang something out in [popular framework] without knowing basic HTML/CSS and let the world suffer from my rot." I hate modern web development.
I also think people skipping over learning some basic CSS fundamentals also end up skipping over basic UI/UX needed for accessible websites, something every web developer should have some awareness about.
Complete reliance on CSS frameworks does not magically make the websites accessible,it gets you 90% there.
Also /blog leads of 403!? Wildcard redirects are not that difficult to setup either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mullvad is near the cutting edge on zero trust deployments What is "zero trust deployments"?
Meaning they're achieving their privacy goals without any inherent trust in their systems (eg no databases of user info, etc)
Depends on the payment method. Accounting is mandatory in Sweden.
As a customer of [payment] services, these entities would allow us to request this information if we chose to do so. In short, your payment actions with these two methods are not anonymous and the GDPR and other relevant data protection regulations may apply if you are making a payment by credit card, PayPal, Swish or by bank wire.
The data must be kept for the statutory retention period described in applicable local laws such as the Swedish Accounting Act (some information must be stored for seven years from the end of the fiscal year).
https://mullvad.net/en/help/no-logging-data-policy / https://archive.vn/qkvD3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That blog needs some inline padding for mobile view.
(Carl from Obscura here) You’re absolutely right, we fixed it and forgot to push to prod XP
So tor with 2 hops?
Tor still offers more privacy benefits than Obscura for sure, but you want a shorthand, “Tor with 2 hops” works :-)
Nice. I like the idea of splitting trust so that the clients IP + browsing data are not linked unless the two servers collude. This feels very similar in spirit to VPN cascading though?
Woah I didn’t know about the specific term “VPN cascading”… And it seems like my GLiNet travel router can do it too?
Well in any case, it seems like with cascading you’d have to register with 2 different providers, offering your personal info (if necessary) to both.
> Obscura’s servers relay your connection to exit servers but can never decrypt your traffic.
Doesn't that rely on us trusting that the server runs the code they claim it does? Or is there a way to prove that their server can't get the decryption key (i.e. by proving that it's not possible for them to switch the final hop, or add undisclosed hops in between)?