Despite his listed criteria at the top, the star ratings and rank order seem to be based on how the provider made him feel, and has nothing to do with actually how secure and privacy-protecting the provider is. (To be fair, though, without inside knowledge, it's hard to evaluate how up-and-up they are.) Based on his own metrics, PIA should be listed as #1, not #8; it's the only one that hits all nine of his "Important" list.
I'm completely baffled as to why this list was constructed as it is.
On a side note:
"First, I'm upset at Private Internet Access because I had to modify this site's CSS just for their needlessly long name."
Are you kidding me? Really?
I hate being a cynical ass (I really do) but this guy has no business at all running this website.
I'll not preach the long form of my usual VPN rant (briefly: they introduce another man-in-the-middle - who is probably anonymous to you, one who is very likely not subject to and utterly unaware of data protection laws, which makes you less safe rather than more).
People will read this site, think he knows what he's talking about, and get themselves into a lot of bother because of the bad advice this dude is giving out. He really needs to read up on what he's advocating here, as he clearly has no knowledge of the critical security factors behind these services.
You might think to yourself:
"Easy on, maybe he's writing for folks that don't care about security and just want US Netflix unblocked in their country."
And you would be right if not for the bottom of the page saying this:
"If you've found this site useful, please share it with a friend who you think would benefit from safer, private browsing."
So yeah, actively encouraging the spread of this terrible security advice is probably worth calling out.
The following VPNs were not reviewed due to their website experience being poorly designed. This can mean heavy use of stock photos, utter disregard for detail, difficult navigation, excessive and hard to follow text, non-defaulting to HTTPS, and overall poor usability.
At least he understands what's important in a VPN. Kudos for excluding services that use stock photos in their website design.
Wait, if Tunnelbear are throttling P2P connections, where is the red flag?
Regarding NordVPN: I’ve used them a few years ago and their service was terrible. Disconnects upon disconnects, servers not working for days — I gave up eventually.
Never tested any other VPN he reviewed, however, I’ve written a guide how to pick a VPN provider without throwing numbers and reviews around me, if anyone wants to give it a read.
Its actually unnerving how many of the same projects and groups they support, in some cases being the main benefactor.
It's a struggle to keep the criticism of this site constructive.
Garbage like this is why I wish there was no affiliate business on the internet. You can never assume good faith if someone tries to earn money from you.
Additionally, the characterization as being extremely focused on the tech illiterate I feel isn't really the case either, they have lots of docs about how to use OpenVPN .
Thirdly, while there's no online free trial, at DEFCON and other events they do liberally hand out free trial cards.
The above points, as well as reading the commentary, leads me to believe that the author hasn't spent much time at all using or understanding the various product offerings, and the written review and star-score seem to clash with the high feature based score listed above. I can't speak at all for the other providers, but I don't feel like PIA at least has been well researched.
As full disclosure, I'm a unpaid volunteer for a non-profit PIA has contributed to.
I have used in the past, but do not currently use, PIA VPN.
The HTTP connection upon startup is for the region data request which is signed and verified upon receipt. It's tamper proof, but you can read it. It's something that anyone with the client can read, and the client is free to download.
Arguably, it's more secure to entrust the communication from PIA to the client software itself than to blindly entrust it to HTTPS which has provably been compromised due to bad actors in the past.
We're in #privateinternetaccess on irc.freenode.net to discuss anytime as well!
Thanks for everything mobitar and for taking the time to produce this report.
And to that extent, when it comes to your privacy and fighting for your internet civil liberties, we'll be second to none.
That said, a question: is there a way for a power user to control this startup ping mechanism in favor of using a single server they have selected as the best? The only reason I see to not do this would be if your IP ranges are volatile time-wise for some reason. Or perhaps I'm missing another factor?
You can bypass the app. I've identified some servers that work good and are close to me and just use a separate app with the profiles/configuration I need. (You can use the built in VPN on your OS or use the OpenVPN app directly for example if you want).
There are options.
There's just one thing that's kind of a deal breaker. I recently switched to Mac and the Mac PIA Client is quite far behind the Windows, Android and iOS versions.
I'll list all my issues together here:
- slow to start
- slow to connect (often tries forever). This is my biggest issue. On other platforms (or connecting directly with the built in Mac vpn function) it takes like 2-3 seconds. With the Mac client it takes many times longer. There's also no feedback about what stage the connection is in, unlike on every other OS.
- doesn't reconnect if network changes, so internet just stops working
- can't see pings for servers
- not as sexy as Windows client
I switched to using the built in Mac VPN feature to connect which is much faster, but occasionally stops working altogether for 20-30 minutes. So right now I don't have a good reliable VPN solution.
Hope this feedback helps!
Can you please fix the mac client so that when I wake up my macbook after couple days of sleep I don't have HUNDREDS of "disconnected" messages from PIA to dismiss? I understand it connects and then disconnects every time the computer wakes up briefly during sleep, but the onslaught of notifications is.....A lot.
Are they, as I suspect (as a PIA user), pinging their own servers worldwide, to find the fastest options available? Are they pinging third parties?
Your review basically says "pings are bad m'kay" without demonstrating any understanding of what the client is doing.
Furthermore, your questioning of the use of port 80 makes me wonder about your own security knowledge. You really don't understand why a commercial VPN product designed to be used by portable devices in unexpected environments might commence a connection on port 80?
These 'objections' you have make me sceptical of your attention to detail in general.
It also tries to find the fastest connection for you, which is useful when traveling.
I sometimes use the app. Mainly use the builtin client of the OS.
A simple Google search also reveals various user complaints that PIA apparently uses a Ruby (!) script to constantly write an extensive local log of all web activities, and the option is switched on by default. That's not inspiring my confidence. Their pricing is great, though.
The problem I have with VPNs in general is that quite a sizable number of them look as if they had been set up by dubious entities solely to collect data on their customers. Especially the ones with competitive pricing.
I would rather trust some of the more expensive ones from e.g. Sweden.
"Failure to comply with the present Terms of Service constitutes a material breach of the Agreement, and may result in one or more of these following actions:
Disclosure of such information to law enforcement authorities as deemed reasonably necessary.
For someone in, say, Germany a German VPN would be way more worrisome because of the same jurisdiction.
> A pretty boring company. Extremely transactional. You get in and get out. It delivers its experience the way a utility company would. Sometimes, that may be a good thing. But in this case, since I have choice, I'd rather give my money to a company who would appreciate it a little more — perhaps put it to better use.
PIA might be very "transactional" but I like them and I've never had any issues with their service. I'm surprised it didn't get a better rating. I don't need a flashy VPN, a utility is exactly what I'm looking for.
Disclaimer: I used to use Vyrpr, when I found out about the logging, I switched to PIA, which I use with Tunnelblick anyway instead of their app. Furthermore, I can only really go by what they say, as I don't have inside access to their systems.
The stars are identified as being from his personal experience and he discusses the rationale behind them.
Now, they're _much_ slower. Surely it's not just me.
So maybe it _is_ just me, or my ISP throttles encrypted traffic, or ....
The fact of a connection being established in port 80 is to do with how TCP/IP works. You aren't even claiming to understand what protocol is in use on port 80, not to mention whether the data is in the clear, what it is for, etc. This isn't analysis, it's... something far short of analysis that I can't think of a kind name for.
The use of port 80 is not really important; I'm not sure if the article's author is using "port 80" as shorthand for "unencrypted" but that's sloppy writing if so; you can certainly establish encrypted connections over port 80, of course. I used to do SSH on port 80 all the time to get around stupid firewalls...
He mentions that 2 of the VPNs are 'uninspired'. Sorry, I didn't realize that tunneling traffic to protect privacy was an art project and not a technical one.
FWIW I've used PIA for 2 years now with no issues. A TON of torrenting has gone through them and they don't care in the least. In addition when their Russian servers were seized I received an email immediately letting me know their current situation and about their key changes due to the event. Plus they no longer do business in that location due to it. Pretty top notch company in my eyes even if their site does look 15 years old.
Anyway, for a better VPN comparison with actual objective facts, check https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison-chart/ and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L72gHJ5bTq0Djljz0P-N...
Sadly, this is the case for a lot of media/recommendations/etc now. Maybe it has always been this way, but it's much more noticable now.
The fan driven recommendations/sites are a thing of the past as everyone is trying to monetize and make money off their articles.
Even worse, with the move by corporate america/government agencies/political groups into the social media space, even comments/submissions have to been viewed with some degree of skepticism.
It seems like every other article/submission/comment/etc are selling something and the internet/social media/etc is no longer a community but a marketplace.
Commercial VPNs: for when you want all the security of Ukrainian coffee-house wifi from the comfort of your own home.
Taylor Swift isn't wrong about this. Use something like Algo to run your own VPN if you have to. If you must use a commercial VPN to get to Netflix or whatever, do it from inside a virtual machine that you use for nothing but that.
Nothing prevents the datacenter provider from doing the bad crap that commercial VPN providers can do. There are ones out there that let you use standard clients as well, so the bad client software part is kind of moot. The only advantage you get is control and responsibility over the vpn server.
Money prevents it. Of course datacenter could toggle logging for particular server, but logging everything is very expensive. Most of their clients aren't running VPN servers or file sharing software so it's easier for them to just kick you out on DMCA arrival or when something shady is going on rather than keep your bandwidth.
On other side any commercial VPN service is always waiting for problems with law enforcement to come. And unlike datacenter huge part of their customer base will be doing something shady so they can't just stop providing service in every of such cases.
They'll absolutely log a particular server if a law enforcement agency requires that they do so, and they'll bill the agency for it, so money isn't a factor.
At least they can for sure have turn full logging for anyone who paid with bitcoin (even if it's through coinbase).
This might be good advice for tech-savvy people, but too hard for most folks.
Also, Algo is targeted at only security/privacy, and not censorship resistant. The last time I checked, it didn't offer any protocols that work well behind GFW.
Also, where are you going to run your VPN? Assuming you don't have your own hosting infrastructure (or domestic broadband connection in another country), then you're renting a server from someone else. Perhaps your assumption is that a random VPS provider is more trustworthy than a random VPN provider?
> If you must use a commercial VPN to get to Netflix or whatever,
> do it from inside a virtual machine that you use for nothing but that.
Again, good advice for tech-savvy people, but not practical for most folks, particularly for the times when they're on mobile devices.
I don't disagree with your overall sentiment (I don't use commercial VPN providers for the same reasons), but for many folks these serve a useful purpose, and there are no practical alternatives.
I use a commercial VPN primarily so that my IP is shared across hundreds of other users (as opposed to using it so that my data is safe being transmitted through coffeehouse WiFi), and thus would make it at least marginally more difficult for someone to track me.
Is this reasoning false?
Beijing has been cracking down on VPN users a lot recently (even blocking AWS, DO, etc.)
So not just spinning up your own, but finding a VPS host they don't yet know about.
For example, TunnelBear scores highly on security, but poorly on ethics.
I wrote a bit about choosing VPNs, and about my concerns with TOPS, here: https://davepeck.org/2017/04/16/why-its-hard-to-choose-a-vpn...
PS: Since this is HN, I just want to say that if you can, you should run your own VPN. Use Algo, full stop -- it's put together by some of the best in the business. If you do decide to go with a third party provider, hopefully the six criterion I suggest in my post are helpful.
Many of the items you claim are not addressed by TOPG absolutely are. Questionable/sketchy product marketing & SEO, ethical business practices, etc are all covered in the detailed comparisons Ethics section. Other items you claim he SHOULD look at go against his methodology and are impossible to indepdently verify - such as technical architecture and sustainability.
The main purpose of jurisdiction is to see which countries are more likely to illegally spy on its citizens and which have a track record of being an "enemy of the internet". You claim a VPN located in the US (like the one you made and have a stake in) are subject to government agencies such as the FTC, but many if not most of these companies are regularly allowed to flout FTC rules on native advertising and bad SEO and such which is why the industry is largely in the misinformation mess that it is - and we all know about Five Eyes and why that matters - any laws claiming to protect its citizens are kind of negated by programs such as PRISM, XKeyScore, and every other one we've learned about from Snowden.
You claim you get suspicious of TOPS reliability is because the data is wrong on Cloak - "TOPS claims that Cloak’s native apps leak IPv6 and DNS traffic." The detailed comparison actually shows whether the service officially tunnels or actively blocks IPv6 and runs its own first party DNS server. This is worded plainly in the header and further explained in the glossary. Lastly, if these are actually not the case for yours or any service, all he requires is a link to the official site where the data can be validated. I'm wondering if the point of the article was a lead up to the end in an attempt to turn people away from TOPS so your joke of a service (which surprise surprise, didn't score so well on the chart) isn't seen for what it is.
Thank you for creating a new and anonymous HN account just to deliver your important message.
Alas, it is confused in many particulars. Normally I wouldn't feel the need to reply to posts such as yours, but today the oppressive heat wave seems to have lifted from Seattle and I happen to have a delicious coffee beverage in hand.
So I'll bite:
> First, written by the creator of a VPN company
Guilty as charged. That I co-founded a VPN company is disclosed quite clearly, both here on HN and on my blog. Let there be no confusion. :-)
> someone obviously biased
It's hard to judge another person's biases from afar. I generally refrain from accusing others of bias when I don't know.
But I definitely understand how you might reach the wrong conclusion here. If it helps, I will reiterate that I am no longer with my old company (I sold it quite some time ago); I no longer have skin in the VPN game.
Before I dive into your specific points, I want to make a meta-point that seems to have been missed both by you and by other people who responded to my post:
TOPS is, in the right hands, a valuable resource. The person who built TOPS appears to have extremely good intentions and has done an amazing amount of useful work.
The problem isn't TOPS in isolation. The problem is when TOPS gets in the hands of the typical unsavvy potential purchaser of VPN services. It is my belief that the right axes on which to judge VPN services are fundamentally resistant to objective measure. In my experience, unavvy customers armed only with objective information are likely to go astray.
Okay, on to the specifics:
> Questionable/sketchy product marketing & SEO, ethical business practices, etc are all covered in the detailed comparisons Ethics
Let's take a look at the current ethics columns. Today, they break down more-or-less into two buckets.
The first bucket has to do with affiliate marketing and effectively asks three questions of both the VPN provider and its affiliates: is SPAM avoided, is the copy ethical and is disclosure followed properly? Alas, the gradations of unethical behavior run pretty deep in the VPN affiliate world (ask me over beer sometime), and go far beyond copy and disclosure. TOPS is providing useful information here, but capturing the fullness of affiliate behavior would probably require an armada of columns.
The second bucket is for "good faith" behavior and has exactly three columns, including "contradictory logging policies" (do they say 'no logging' but it looks sketchy?), "claims 100% effectiveness" (nobody can!), and "incentivizes social media spam". These are interesting in a shallow sort of way... alas, it's hard to go particularly deep while remaining objective.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter:
> Other items you claim he SHOULD look at go against his methodology and are impossible to independently verify
Yes and, again, this is the point of my post!
I believe that some of the most important attributes of a VPN provider to consider are precisely the ones that cannot be objectively measured. In other words, trust signals are potentially far more important than many of the objective columns on TOPS. Perhaps I argue this unsuccessfully, but there you have it.
At the end of my post, I suggest six trust signals to look for. These are things that, realistically, cannot be captured objectively. These are also things that I recommend to all potential VPN customers. A handful of VPN providers (including the one I co-founded and providers like TunnelBear and VyprVPN) fit the bill.
> The main purpose of jurisdiction is to see which countries are more likely to illegally spy on its citizens and which have a track record of being an "enemy of the internet"
Yup, the US is bad... which has little to do with whether a VPN provider based in the US is fundamentally trustworthy.
There's a bunch of muddled discussion in your paragraph that follows, so I'll just say this: if one of the "bad" countries wants to get at your VPN traffic, do you really think it matters where your VPN provider is located? If the NSA wants your data, they'll probably find a way to get it.
I will provide one specific ding against US-based VPN providers that you didn't mention: they're subject to National Security Letters. NSLs typically come with a gag order, so providers must both comply and cannot say they have done so. That's quite bad; there's a lot of political momentum in the US right now to change this.
> The detailed comparison actually shows whether the service officially tunnels or actively blocks IPv6
This column on TOPS is a bit confusing and in my opinion needs to be fixed, since it's effectively using a binary to handle tripartite state. The three possible states seem to be: IPv6 is blocked, IPv6 is supported, and IPv6 isn't blocked and actually leaks. I suppose the right thing to do is to have two separate columns.
I elided this detail in my post, I think reasonably so. But it's a good point to make for people looking at TOPS.
> runs its own first party DNS server
Which the service I co-founded does, despite TOPS's claim to the contrary. A minor data inaccuracy; given the complexity of maintaining TOPS, I don't count this against them. I say as much in my blog post.
> I'm wondering if the point of the article was a lead up to the end in an attempt to turn people away from TOPS so your joke of a service
Y'know, it really annoys me when thirsty randos show up on the Internet to cast aspersions. But I'll resist the temptation to go further and just have another nice sip of coffee instead. :-)
TOPS is one of the extraordinarily few impartial guides to VPN providers. We would be far worse off without it.
Running your own VPN is fine if your goal is to protect yourself from a malicious LAN, but useless if you're trying to hide your identity. The IP of whatever provider you choose can reveal your identity just as easily as your home IP.
It can be harmful in the hands of less savvy potential VPN customers, when it leads them entirely to the wrong conclusions. (You're unlikely to fit in this category.)
As an aside, I'm skeptical that there are "tons" of actually good reasons to avoid US jurisdiction. I don't doubt that good reasons exist. It's just that I've seen plenty of bad ones! :-)
And to clarify: no, advertising Cloak is absolutely not my goal. If you're interested, I'm always happy to recommend trustworthy VPN services that aren't Cloak. I mention Cloak in that post because in my (biased!) opinion it's a good exemplar of the six criterion I look for. That's no accident, since I co-founded Cloak and built it in part to satisfy those criterion. That I'm Cloak's co-founder is pretty clearly disclosed both here on HN and on my personal blog. I should mention, for completeness, that I'm no longer affiliated with Cloak.
And apparently that applies to AirVPN? Lol, this guy lost all credibility, this is just another "honest and totally not payed for online review", thats why tunnelbear is righ there at the top (you see their commercials everywhere) and he even says it's his favorite VPN.
They do have an image of it in their website, but the connection might not be obvious still.
I fail to see how being a boring company has anything to do with the service they offer. If anything, being boring is a very good thing.
Sounds like a perfect provider. Prices are clearly stated on the site. You get what you pay for. They have some guides for people that might need more help setting it up.
...¿? I don't really need fun. Just want something that's boring, quick and works.
That's not valuable information.
> A heavily marketed product lacking inspiration which I ultimately couldn't get to work properly.
At this point you've given up even trying. It's not a useful comparison any longer.
With any VPN provider, there are certain crucial features where you have to trust them, "no logging" being the most prominent.
Since you're unable to get to the actual truth (until it's too late), you're left with trying to get a sense of the provider's character: are they supporting open source projects in the privacy space? Do they advocate for causes you believe in (by, for example, participating in the net neutrality blackout)? Do they take pride in their work ("show source" may be helpful here)? Do they have humour?
None of these are definitive. But in my experience, it's actually pretty hard for people who aren't members of a certain community to emulate it convincingly.
If your goal is no logging and one of your metics is "Do they have humor"? You're in deep trouble.
For anything actually sensitive, you're better off not using a VPN than using a VPN which provides an unsafe configuration.
If you'd rather not do your own pager duty for something like Algo, here's a recommendation I put together a while ago:
> In general, US persons today on residential broadband are safest not using a VPN.
> Only connect to US-based VPN servers while in the US. Even if your VPN provider offers servers outside the US.
What? No reasons given. Smells like FUD.
having a per-user PSK isn't going to protect you if the protocol is fundamentally broken, which is the case for PPTP/l2tp
For all other uses, Kenn recommends Algo, and I recommend Cloak, neither of which uses PPTP/l2tp.
I can tell them one thing: use Cloak. And I know that, no matter how they do so, they won't be less safe than they would have been without it.
For more on this, see my followup to the VPN post: https://free-dissociation.com/blog/posts/2017/04/public-heal...
Furthermore, the fact that Apple has just pulled VPN apps from its App Store and the unfortunate fact that you can't sideload apps makes iOS an untenable OS choice.
I'm pretty sure you can still install VPN apps (e.g. Potatso 2) from the iOS App Store, although perhaps they're not available if you're logged in with a China iTunes account. iOS allows you to install apps from multiple iTunes accounts on the same device, though, so this doesn't seem like much of a limitation.
(Not sure if they're also blocking by IP address.)
It also seems a bit odd to rate VPNs on their specific technical merits and features, and then disqualify for their homepage UI or sign up flow. I'd venture most VPN customers would tolerate a lot of ugliness for a truly private, secure, and reliable service. I would.
Edit: Link to his charts as a Google Document https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L72gHJ5bTq0Djljz0P-N... for a much better usability than the widget on the website itself.
That's referring to reddit the company, and it was quoting one of reddit's sysadmins: https://www.goldenfrog.com/blog/reddit-gives-every-employee-...
... isn't the point of a VPN do just do its job and stay out of sight? Why is 'boring' even remotely relevant to the VPN equation?
100% true since the "best VPN" likely has the highest affiliate commission.
In fact, websites that claim honesty and transparency like BestVPN and VPNMentor actually display pop-up alerts advertising their highest rated VPN.
"I built this website because I wanted to finally get to the bottom of the question: which VPN providers are trying to build an honest long-term brand while also delivering an exceptional product experience?"
This is a fair metric. Unfortunately useless for most VPN users but this is another question. And to give him credit: He does not use affiliate links.
I suspect that he knows little about VPNs and why many users have to use them. By the way, I suspect most of these VPNs to fail in China!
Astrill.com is good for China.
vcp.ovpn.to has a good reputation regarding privacy.
Given that one of the criteria the VPNs were measured on was 'fun' makes me inclined to dismiss the whole thing.
VPNs are to stop the secret police from coming and killing your family and taking you away, 'fun' is coding, not playing with your life.
I've been using EarthVPN, one of his unreviewed options, for several years, and am very happy. It's cheap and cheerful, but yes, the website isn't great. The company is registered in Cyprus, and at USD40/year with three concurrent connections (from the same IP) and servers in many, many countries, it's a great way to bypass geoblocked websites.
That's the advantage of several connections from the same IP :-)
What? Extremely transactional? You're in and out? When using my VPN I want to click 'connect' to connect, choose US if I want my connection for the US, and 'disconnect' to disconnect... No fancy website or pretty colors needed.
You also seem to be prioritizing aesthetic appeal over function. Is there a reason for that?
> TunnelBear has somehow figured out how to make VPNs fun.
> Extremely transactional. You get in and get out.
> Heavy use of stock photos, fake customer service agent profiles, and sensational marketing copy.
> Extremely bland, stock-photo website. I felt uncomfortable giving them my email address, let alone my payment info.
> But I sort of like it when companies show more humility.
> First, I'm upset at Private Internet Access because I had to modify this site's CSS just for their needlessly long name.
How do I know this? I do the same thing with my sites.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make it almost a turnkey operation, just run the script and you're good to go, and then it would be a viable option for non-technical people.
Of course, not ideal for anonymity, but a perfectly fine solution for if you want the security benefits of a VPN, or to get around geoblocking (I originally spun up my VPN to watch something that was geoblocked, now I keep it for when using open wifi connections).
My main use for now it is for security, not for watching geoblocked things, so I'm not so worried about it.
Example http://www.top10bestvpn.com/ "Please be advised that the operator of this site ACCEPTS advertising COMPENSATION from certain companies that appear on the site, and such compensation IMPACTS THE LOCATION AND ORDER in which the companies (and/or their products) are presented, and in some cases may also IMPACT THE SCORING that is assigned to them." (emphasis mine)
100% vapourware web presence here: http://digitalsnorkel.net/
I have used both personal VPS hosted and commercial VPN systems at various times (I currently use a commercial VPN to anonymize some traffic sometimes and bypass national-level censorship).
In my understanding of the various pros and cons of those two options, I'm not sure I grasp the core value proposition that this offers. Why do I want:
A) A server with fewer (one) unique user(s), and therefore traffic that is much easier to analyse;
B) A service with a single static IP and geolocation; but which
C) I am trusting a third party to administer.
I seem to be seeing a service which offers me the biggest drawbacks of both sides. Am I missing something?
Could someone please explain?
Hope this helps explain the fetish!
Disclosure: I am a PIA employee.
I looked at the Chrome extension of TunnelBear and it requires some ridiculous permissions , much more than just "change your proxy settings". This doesn't seem right.
edit: I know you can't make everyone happy, but there are a LOT of VPN options out there and only the very best should be making it through.
They just got audited
The tool shaped Facebook’s decision to buy WhatsApp and informed its live-video strategy, they say. Facebook used Onavo to build its early-bird tool that tips it off to promising services and that helped Facebook home in on Houseparty."
But are you planning to add more servers in other countries (than the 5 you already offer)?
Even though it will take some time for the next location to be added, feel free to email us with your suggestion.
Today I was trying your service and missing killswitch in iOS app is the single reason why I have decided to wait.
The scene guys know their stuff.
Disclaimer: none. I have no affiliation other than I am a customer.
I am a happy user of NordVPN with all of the above points adressed by them really well. BTW the latest feature, CyberSEC also blocks ads which is a major plus for me, making the VPN that much faster.
E.g. throughput, latency, connection setup, encryption strengths, fixed ip address etc etc. This is just a feature compare, where one trusts the vpn provider on their blue eyes, e.g. "No logging or tracking"
I cannot imagine a sane service provider that doesn't have some kind of logging, not of your (in vpn case,) browsing activity itself, but when you connected, what accounts are getting brute forced, etc etc. This is logging too.
* If you need to change your location (country) often, the apps usually have a dropdown where you select the country you wish to connect to
* It's easier to setup, especially for novice users
* They can have additional features, like a kill switch that makes sure that if the VPN connection drops you don't send any traffic over your non-VPN connection
Edit: As others note, he doesn't include AirVPN, which is one of the best activist-focused services around. And his comments about IVPN are bizarre. It is expensive. But it has no affiliate program, and its apps are among the best. In particular, for being leak free.
I chose it b/c the organization behind it seems trustworthy. I don't know what the author has in mind when he labels the billing practice "shady".
Again - how did this make the front page... Embarrassing for HN.
1. oVPN.to Does it work in China? (Support not helpful but I still like them)
2. Does Softether https://www.softether.org/ work in China?
So, it's just a matter of finding a VPN that matches your preferences, but I'd avoid using a free VPN.
I'm about to move to China. What vpn set up is best?
I use and android phone and Mac laptop.
Hope that helps!
Unless you mean Private Tunnel VPN, their VPN subscription product? It's one of many, many products not reviewed here.