5 ms·

First that costs too much for many. Second, you don't just want to prevent MITM, you (hopefully) also care about site's tracking you. For example, you have a

First that costs too much for many. Second, you don't just want to prevent MITM, you (hopefully) also care about site's tracking you. For example, you have a Linux/Firefox user-agent and you are browsing HN in private mode, you close the window and start over. No cookies or other artifacts of the previous session remains but your user-agent and IP combibation is unique enough to identify your device. Now if you are using a VPN service there might be at least a handful of Linux/Firefox users out of millions that share the same IP. Third, most VPN users like the geoip flexibility it allows them (bypass filtering or access different content). Fourth, a VPS dedicated to this one service means you are now the admin of one more server that needs to be patched and supported by you (admin overhead) Fivth, some sites block you if you use cloud provider IPs Sixth, some VPN providers specifically host their infra in privacy friendly jurisdictions and take precautions cloud/vps providers might not (legally and technically). Seventh, reputation. No one will bat an eye if Microsoft let some country's law enforcement have logs of your traffic in Azure. But by design, outbound VPN traffic can only be logged on the VPN server and it would ruin their reputation if they disclosed logs or tampered with traffic which translates to monetary loss. VPN services are far from perfect but they hardly have any replacement. Just pick one with a good reputation. For example with PIA, they are incorporated in the great surveillance kingdom of the UK, which is why I avoided them. They did not take the neccessary legal precautions and their freenode aquisition made little sense from a profit perspective which all in all suggests a grand scheme/vision not obvious to customers.

iudqnolq 7y ago
It depends on your threat model. If you're worried about threats below the level of major nation-states a big company could make more sense. If for example a VPN company was caught bundling malware with their VPN client they would be over, but their owners would loose much less than Google would under the same circumstances. Google will cooperate with big governments, but you can be confident they aren't owned by the Russian mafia.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  If you're dealing with nation states, all the big cloud providers have NSA presence in their network. Even without that,secret warrants are a thing and VPS providers rent datacenters from someone else ,that someone else (azure,hetzner,ovh,etc...) also rents out infra to VPN providers. The only differrence is VPN providets sell VPN while VPS providers let you access the whole vm. The only differnce is how a VPN provider can be incompetent or malicious. It is less likely for MS to be incompetent but so long as the nation state is a western nation,they are more likely to be malicious. I guess it does depend on your threat model but I would say for most people who don't have specific threat in mind they should exclude highly sophisticated attackers much like how you don't secure your housr against sophisticated bank robbers that might pull a heist on you.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    > The only differnce is how a VPN provider can be incompetent or malicious. Agree completely > It is less likely for MS to be incompetent but so long as the nation state is a western nation,they are more likely to be malicious. Yes, but as I argued in the comment you replied to the difference in maliciousness is effictively infinitesimal because the govt can get access to any VPN provider.
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      There are different factors to consider,even if Microsoft intentionally infected people with ruddiam malware, at worst they get a fine and bad PR with tech circles -- their cash cows windows and azure remain unaffected. With a VPN provider like say Freedome , any sign of malice will cost them not only their VPN business but Fsecure's ability to provide infosec services. Same with ProtonVPN and ProtonMail, and unlike Microsoft the CEOs are much more likely to be held accountable since they reside in countries like Finland and Switzerland where privacy laws are very strict. Those countries may not like it if Microsoft did the same thing but they can't extradite Microsoft's CEO and even if they do the company is not incorporates in those countries. You want a VPN provider to be run by well known people that are not too powerful or too connected and reside in countries that will hold them accountable. Their main revenue stream needs to also depend on the reputation of the VPN service.
arminiusreturns 7y ago
>For example with PIA, they are incorporated in the great surveillance kingdom of the UK, which is why I avoided them. They did not take the neccessary legal precautions and their freenode aquisition made little sense from a profit perspective which all in all suggests a grand scheme/vision not obvious to customers. This summarizes my thoughts very well.

iudqnolq 7y ago

It depends on your threat model. If you're worried about threats below the level of major nation-states a big company could make more sense. If for example a VPN company was caught bundling malware with their VPN client they would be over, but their owners would loose much less than Google would under the same circumstances. Google will cooperate with big governments, but you can be confident they aren't owned by the Russian mafia.

badrabbit 7y ago
If you're dealing with nation states, all the big cloud providers have NSA presence in their network. Even without that,secret warrants are a thing and VPS providers rent datacenters from someone else ,that someone else (azure,hetzner,ovh,etc...) also rents out infra to VPN providers. The only differrence is VPN providets sell VPN while VPS providers let you access the whole vm. The only differnce is how a VPN provider can be incompetent or malicious. It is less likely for MS to be incompetent but so long as the nation state is a western nation,they are more likely to be malicious. I guess it does depend on your threat model but I would say for most people who don't have specific threat in mind they should exclude highly sophisticated attackers much like how you don't secure your housr against sophisticated bank robbers that might pull a heist on you.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  > The only differnce is how a VPN provider can be incompetent or malicious. Agree completely > It is less likely for MS to be incompetent but so long as the nation state is a western nation,they are more likely to be malicious. Yes, but as I argued in the comment you replied to the difference in maliciousness is effictively infinitesimal because the govt can get access to any VPN provider.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    There are different factors to consider,even if Microsoft intentionally infected people with ruddiam malware, at worst they get a fine and bad PR with tech circles -- their cash cows windows and azure remain unaffected. With a VPN provider like say Freedome , any sign of malice will cost them not only their VPN business but Fsecure's ability to provide infosec services. Same with ProtonVPN and ProtonMail, and unlike Microsoft the CEOs are much more likely to be held accountable since they reside in countries like Finland and Switzerland where privacy laws are very strict. Those countries may not like it if Microsoft did the same thing but they can't extradite Microsoft's CEO and even if they do the company is not incorporates in those countries. You want a VPN provider to be run by well known people that are not too powerful or too connected and reside in countries that will hold them accountable. Their main revenue stream needs to also depend on the reputation of the VPN service.

arminiusreturns 7y ago

>For example with PIA, they are incorporated in the great surveillance kingdom of the UK, which is why I avoided them. They did not take the neccessary legal precautions and their freenode aquisition made little sense from a profit perspective which all in all suggests a grand scheme/vision not obvious to customers. This summarizes my thoughts very well.