16 ms·

Latest Mozilla VPN features

243 points by alexrustic 6y ago

theshrike79 6y ago
Isn't Mozilla VPN just rebranded Mullvad? The only difference is that you can get Mullvad anywhere and pay anonymously without any accounts.
- Thursday032521 6y ago
  It looks like it uses Mullvad servers, but is otherwise its own software. It uses WireGuard, an open VPN protocol, so it's not necessarily forever anchored to Mullvad.
  - nargek 6y ago
    Mullvad provides both OpenVPN and Wireguard.
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    "Being its own software" is sort of meaningless. It's Mozilla white labeling an anonymous VPN service (ie, we don't know who runs it).
    - NikolaNovak 6y ago
      >>"we don't know who runs it" I thought it's owner regularly comments / joins in on hacker news... I didn't feel like I don't know who's running it? Edit : quick search turns two very relevant posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24169684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24169684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23567530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23567530
      - RL_Quine 6y ago
        The website of Mullvad itself has essentially no identifying information, and that's fine and perfectly reasonable, it's just got to be part of your threat model of using the thing. Mozilla whitelabeling the service and giving it a well known reputation is another thing entirely.
        NikolaNovak 6y ago
        Hmm... I may not fully understand what you're looking for. From their website: "Who owns Mullvad? The Mullvad VPN service is operated by Mullvad VPN AB which is a subsidiary of Amagicom AB. Both companies are 100% owned by founders Fredrik Strömberg and Daniel Berntsson." Location, Company name, individual names of founders/owners. What other "identifying information" would satisfy? I found their FAQ, blog and guides tremendously helpful, transparent and upfront. There's a wealth of info with just a couple of clicks.
- forgotpwd16 6y ago
  Also Mullvad's app has been audited.
  - zo1 6y ago
    I'm curious - Have their servers and processes been subjected to any audit like that?
    - kfreds 6y ago
      https://mullvad.net/en/blog/tag/audits/ https://mullvad.net/en/blog/tag/audits/
      - zo1 6y ago
        Thanks for the link!
yoavm 6y ago
I don't understand what can be so hard about "supporting" more countries? It's the internet. Anyone can access your servers. International credit card charging was invent decades ago. Take my money.
- eli 6y ago
  Don't a bunch of countries have laws about VPNs?
- tyingq 6y ago
  Probably that fraud detection doesn't work well enough in some countries to make more money than you spend. AVS, for example, is only available in the US, UK, and Canada. It sucks, but for some types of services, there's an army of people trying to use stolen CC numbers.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    The only three countries that have sufficient fraud protection for AVS are anglophone? I don't think that is the (only) reason here.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      Not speculating on why, but yes, those are the only countries that do AVS. Though AVS is just part of it. They support Singapore, which doesn't do AVS. So apparently whatever fraud protection is available there suffices. Also, it's available in New Zealand, but not Australia, which is a fairly large anglophone population.
tored 6y ago
If you as a company, like Mozilla, pushes for deplatforming and similar anti-freespeech measures, demand for VPN services will definitely increase. So congrats on your new VPN service, Mozilla, and hats off to the 4D chess players at the marketing division.
- natch 6y ago
  What deplatforming and anti free speech measures is this talking about?
  - zo1 6y ago
    I was curious about the above question, so I did a basic google search out of curiosity. Not sure if this is disturbing, ironic or funny, but here is a blog post from Mozilla: "We need more than deplatforming by Mitchell Baker" https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d... Edit. Added title of the link.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    The way I always hear it, the title of a Mozilla blog post was “We need more than deplatforming”¹, which was/is interpreted by some to be an endorsement of deplatforming. 1) https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
    - akalsz 6y ago
      > which was/is interpreted by some to be an endorsement of deplatforming. How else could one interpret it? I'm genuinely curious, as I thought they were pretty clear about it (emphasis mine): > We need solutions that don't start after untold damage has been done. > Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. > Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken:
      - 6y ago
opheliate 6y ago
It's really disappointing to me that Mozilla VPN didn't support Linux from the get-go, and even now, from their FAQ [1], apparently only supports Ubuntu. The code for the client is open source, and can be built on other distributions, but the more pressing question to me is why their own client is necessary at all. Mullvad (which this VPN is based on) allows you to just download WireGuard/OpenVPN config files, which you can use with your own, more widely used/trusted client. The only reason I can see for Mozilla to require the use of their own client is to enforce their device limit, which really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I don't think their desire to impose the device-limit should outweigh the security implications of disallowing me from using the standard WireGuard client. I want to give Mozilla my money for this, but it's really annoying how unfriendly its implementation is. 1: https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/products/vpn/#faq-compatibility https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/products/vpn/#faq-compatibilit...
- kfreds 6y ago
  Hi! I'm one of Mullvad's founders. I can't speak for Mozilla, but we have our own desktop and mobile apps because it enables us to do more privacy-preserving things with a higher assurance. Consider for instance DNS leaks, Teredo leaks, IPv6 leaks, esoteric DHCP directives that can hack your routing tables, and so on. And these are just a few of the things we were early in mitigating correctly. Consider also the tight relationship between UX and security, and it is clear that we can't rely on "generic VPN clients" to always agree with our design and security preferences. That doesn't mean they are wrong and we are right of course. It's just that we have a very specific mission. One architecture decision we made for our app was to write its backend in Rust, and integrate tightly with the firewalls on Windows, macOS, and Linux. It facilitates stability and therefore reduces the risk of states where data leak outside of the tunnel. Check it out, it's open source. As all security-related things should be. https://github.com/mullvad/mullvadvpn-app https://github.com/mullvad/mullvadvpn-app
  - Spivak 6y ago
    But it throws compatibility with devices that don't support your client out the window. Like I might want to have an entire VLAN on my home network route all traffic through the VPN which would happen through my router. But my router only supports common VPN protocols like IPSec, OpenVPN, and WireGuard. Sure, I could make it work with a separate Linux server running your app and some routing but that's far more work than most other VPN providers. I'm fine with warnings in your UI about connections with these protocols being "less secure" like how Zoom handles E2E with phones.
rubyist5eva 6y ago
Killswitch and split tunneling are the only things that are keeping me from using it, I want to give Mozilla my money...come on man.
- fulafel 6y ago
  What does split tunneling mean in context of a public VPN?
  - rubyist5eva 6y ago
    I want to split the tunnelling from my local machine, I want certain (whitelisted) applications to bypass the VPN and everything else to use it.
cyberlab 6y ago
I don't like that it's tied to your Mozilla account, which I never used anyway because I like to keep strictly local copies of my credentials using Keepass. Storing secrets in the cloud comes with a risk. Someone (hello NSA) will use your encrypted cloud-based vault as target practice and try to crack it. With a local copy, only I can access it.
maeln 6y ago
I feel like most of those VPN services are using very borderline marketing and like to keep a lot of information blurry. As far as I know, in a lot of country (like France) it is a legal obligation to keep logs and be able to identify one of your customer if the police demands it. Therefore, if you have server in France or any country with similar rules, you can't operate a "0 log" service. And since those kinds of services have servers everywhere (and it is even one of their selling point), it is extremely unlikely that they don't keep you data and will hand it to the police (willingly or not) if requested. And if their own server get breached, you can get the info of all the customers who used the breached server. So I find the claim of those services that they provide "more privacy" pretty lousy. Yes they do hide your IP addresses, but that's far from being the only data use to fingerprint you. And if it is to protect you against a Wi-Fi that you don't trust or your ISP, sure it works, but you move the trust from them to your VPN provider. Fighting against geofencing is good though.
- cyberlab 6y ago
  I agree. A VPN should only ever be used for the following: - Shifting traffic over a VPN when using untrusted/sketchy wifi hotspots - Spoofing your geo-location to use geo-specific content And that's it. If privacy is your goal, Tor is much more suitable since it's not a single-hop proxy like a VPN and compartments all your traffic. (But of course Tor is not a silver bullet and there are caveats).
  - sodality2 6y ago
    What about avoiding copyright letters?
    - cyberlab 6y ago
      If someone is determined enough, they just subpoena the VPN and ask for logs. Since a VPN is a single-hop proxy, your real IP is trivially exposed. Even if the VPN provider claims they don't keep logs. There's no way of proving they don't keep logs, and you need to hope the server you connect to is not compromised in some way. And VPN providers are known to use cheap colocation servers/Virtual Private Servers which have questionable security.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Here, I'll get this over with quick: Argle bargle Mozilla bad something something Pocket integration, Firefox isn't even that fast grr Brendan Eich, one time Thunderbird loaded a tracking pixel.
- vehemenz 6y ago
  You forgot dropping XUL extension support
warabe 6y ago
Off topic, but... Is Mozilla VPN going to be available in other countries in near future? I would like to hear the roadmap from Mozilla folks. I live in Japan and am wondering when it would become available in my country...
Shadonototro 6y ago
what's the added value compared to just using mullvad? seems like a way for mozilla to gain shares without much effort? kinda disappointing
admax88q 6y ago
The rise of VPNs signals to me that we as an industry have given up on end to end encryption. Instead VPNs try to encrypt the "first hop" with the assumption or hope that the networks further down the line are "secure" Being on an "unsecured" local network shouldnt be an issue for security.
- EveYoung 6y ago
  How has the industry given up on encryption? In recent years, HTTPS became the new standard and most apps are forced to use encrypted connections as well. Just because VPN ads are calling local networks "unsecure" doesn't mean that they are a true risk.
  - admax88q 6y ago
    Not encryption in general, but end to end encryption.
    - EveYoung 6y ago
      In that case a commercial VPNs won't help much anyway.
jonny383 6y ago
Mozilla: a corporation funded by a spying company with a recent shady record of injecting stuff into products secretely (hello Mr robot). What could go wrong in this thought crime?
jrootabega 6y ago
No warrant canary, from what I can see.
kijin 6y ago
I would prefer something a bit more granular than changing my device's network configuration and sending all of its traffic through the same VPN. Just because I want to watch a movie through a server in another country doesn't mean that I also want my video chat app or stock trading app to take the same detour. Since this is Mozilla, how about a Firefox extension that passes all Firefox traffic through a VPN, like Tor Browser does, but doesn't touch any other app? That would differentiate it from most of the other VPN offerings out there. Currently my go-to solution is to set up a local SOCKS proxy with an SSH tunnel and point Firefox at it. It's good enough for testing, but not all services work properly when accessed that way.
- npteljes 6y ago
  I completely agree with this. If Firefox worked this way, or even just some special tabs of it, that would be great. Brave has TOR tabs AFAIR. Also an easy to use app would be great that can manage other apps' network connections - some could be blocked, some could be redirected through a VPN, etc.
acatton 6y ago
I genuinely don't understand what is the incentive for using Mozilla VPN? I'm a Mozilla and Firefox fanboy, but this new product had me sceptical since the beginning. They literally bring nothing to the table except their brand name. They don't even do the server side, but just resell Mullvad's infrastructure with their brand. I'm already a Mullvad customer, and if I were to switch to Mozilla VPN: * It would not be available in my country (Germany) right away * I would have to join a waitlist * I would have to pay with my credit card, instead of cash-by-mail. (Great privacy improvement! /s) * I would have to use Mozilla's GUI instead of the wg-quick CLI. (The use of wg-quick is documented by Mullvad in addition to Mullvad's GUI, but I haven't found any wg-quick documentation on Mozilla VPN) All of this for the same infrastructure, the same service (number of devices, ...) at the same price. What the hell are you doing Mozilla?!
- Black101 6y ago
  If Mullvad doesn't know who the customers are, that would be the only possible upside?
  - Cu3PO42 6y ago
    But they don't really know that anyway. Your account is just a number and when you mail cash you include a token that they can tie to your account number. Obviously they could log your IP address (which they promise not to), but that's an issue even if you go through Mozilla to purchase the service.
    - jdiez17 6y ago
      I wonder if the cash-by-mail payment option creates some kind of legal liability for Mullvad. If it suddenly became very popular, I would imagine the financial authorities would be rather unsatisfied with "oh, we receive a bunch of cash from anonymous customers by mail, nothing dodgy here..."
- Fergusonb 6y ago
  If you're using mullvad you have likely already done a lot of research on which provider you want to use. A lot of consumers are interested in a quality VPN but wouldn't do this kind of research. Mozilla provide additional eyeballs and billing support, and mullvad provides the service itself. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. They're not in competition for your money, they're targeting different demographics.
jdewitt 6y ago
I can't find a single reason why Mozilla should be wasting resources on VPN when there are already plenty of companies on that grind. I can't find any good reason for encouraging people to circumvent network controls, or throw more networking complexity into what was previously very simple for users. The constant marketing of 'you need a vpn' is super counter productive for users because they have no idea what it even is, what it can break, or why they needed it in the first place. I've run into plenty of folks that said they use vpn because someone offered it to them for free, not because they needed it for any reason. It's stupid shit like this that makes the development of their key software languish.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  I didn’t need a VPN until I did: Recently visited family in a different state and stayed with them for a week. They had a fast internet connection but something in their router made establishing a new TCP connection take forever. I bought a subscription to Mozilla VPN and viola, now my TCP connections open quickly again. Also bonus: I don’t pollute their ad results with my searches. While yes I could dig into their router problem, they had no issues with how things worked and I needed to get work done.
hexis 6y ago
Why would anyone trust Mozilla with their private browsing data? https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
- kaba0 6y ago
  Supporting the transparency of politics has nothing to do with user privacy. Mozilla has an excellent track record on the latter and they put up a great fight in a seemingly lost battle.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pmurt7 6y ago
I switched to Brave, I feel it's the new Firefox really (both Brave and Firefox were founded by Brendan Eich). IPFS, Tor, built-in ad blocker in Rust, crypto, that's what I want in my browser. VPN is so 2010.
- approxim8ion 6y ago
  >VPN is so 2010 https://brave.com/firewall-vpn/ https://brave.com/firewall-vpn/
gregjw 6y ago
I honestly just thought this was a reskin on top of Mullvad
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
f6v 6y ago
From their website: > No logging of your network activity Does it mean I can torrent whatever I want? I mean, if there's a copyright notice, how're they going to know it was me?
- notRobot 6y ago
  > Does it mean I can torrent whatever I want? Yes
- edm0nd 6y ago
  Just use a private tracker site. Copyright and DMCA notices are a thing of the past if you are using private torrent groups and trackers.
  - f6v 6y ago
    I was just wondering how they'll respond to any copyright notices if they don't log network activity.
miniyarov 6y ago
If anyone wants to have a mobile app that creates VPN on DigitalOcean, AWS or GCP checkout ZudVPN.com (https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN) Completely transparent server cloud init: https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN/blob/master/src/providers/DigitalOcean/cloudconfig.tsx https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN/blob/master/src/providers/D...
JustFinishedBSG 6y ago
Can someone explains what's the point of "VPNs" (VPT in reality, there's no network here, just a tunnel) ? I see the point of having a VPN to my own network but paying for a tunnel to some random place.... why ?
- ajsfoux234 6y ago
  A few use-cases I can think of: GeoIP spoofing (watching streaming shows not available in your country), bypassing IP bans from places, preventing DMCA letters from torrenting, and getting past restrictive firewalls that block websites
- Aaronmacaron 6y ago
  Here's a few reasons: - You trust the VPN provider more than your ISP - You want to circumvent geoblocking (Netflix, Sports broadcasts, etc...) - You have to use an untrusted Wi-Fi - You want to circumvent your government blocking certain websites/services
flurdy 6y ago
All I'd want from Firefox would be a browser based VPN. As in per tab or container. That I would appreciate. Mostly for GeoIP restrictions for some sites. A VPN for the whole system I can use other providers who's main business is VPN.
- terrycody 6y ago
  When in Beta, firefox VPN is indeed a browser addon, I used it for months, really good, but they now removed the addon, and only support desktop version, I don't know why, is this a stupid idea? Why not support browser plugin?

243 points by alexrustic 6y ago

Isn't Mozilla VPN just rebranded Mullvad? The only difference is that you can get Mullvad anywhere and pay anonymously without any accounts.

Thursday032521 6y ago
It looks like it uses Mullvad servers, but is otherwise its own software. It uses WireGuard, an open VPN protocol, so it's not necessarily forever anchored to Mullvad.
- nargek 6y ago
  Mullvad provides both OpenVPN and Wireguard.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  "Being its own software" is sort of meaningless. It's Mozilla white labeling an anonymous VPN service (ie, we don't know who runs it).
  - NikolaNovak 6y ago
    >>"we don't know who runs it" I thought it's owner regularly comments / joins in on hacker news... I didn't feel like I don't know who's running it? Edit : quick search turns two very relevant posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24169684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24169684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23567530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23567530
    - RL_Quine 6y ago
      The website of Mullvad itself has essentially no identifying information, and that's fine and perfectly reasonable, it's just got to be part of your threat model of using the thing. Mozilla whitelabeling the service and giving it a well known reputation is another thing entirely.
      - NikolaNovak 6y ago
        Hmm... I may not fully understand what you're looking for. From their website: "Who owns Mullvad? The Mullvad VPN service is operated by Mullvad VPN AB which is a subsidiary of Amagicom AB. Both companies are 100% owned by founders Fredrik Strömberg and Daniel Berntsson." Location, Company name, individual names of founders/owners. What other "identifying information" would satisfy? I found their FAQ, blog and guides tremendously helpful, transparent and upfront. There's a wealth of info with just a couple of clicks.
forgotpwd16 6y ago
Also Mullvad's app has been audited.
- zo1 6y ago
  I'm curious - Have their servers and processes been subjected to any audit like that?
  - kfreds 6y ago
    https://mullvad.net/en/blog/tag/audits/ https://mullvad.net/en/blog/tag/audits/
    - zo1 6y ago
      Thanks for the link!

yoavm 6y ago

I don't understand what can be so hard about "supporting" more countries? It's the internet. Anyone can access your servers. International credit card charging was invent decades ago. Take my money.

eli 6y ago
Don't a bunch of countries have laws about VPNs?
tyingq 6y ago
Probably that fraud detection doesn't work well enough in some countries to make more money than you spend. AVS, for example, is only available in the US, UK, and Canada. It sucks, but for some types of services, there's an army of people trying to use stolen CC numbers.
- anoncake 6y ago
  The only three countries that have sufficient fraud protection for AVS are anglophone? I don't think that is the (only) reason here.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Not speculating on why, but yes, those are the only countries that do AVS. Though AVS is just part of it. They support Singapore, which doesn't do AVS. So apparently whatever fraud protection is available there suffices. Also, it's available in New Zealand, but not Australia, which is a fairly large anglophone population.

tored 6y ago

If you as a company, like Mozilla, pushes for deplatforming and similar anti-freespeech measures, demand for VPN services will definitely increase. So congrats on your new VPN service, Mozilla, and hats off to the 4D chess players at the marketing division.

natch 6y ago
What deplatforming and anti free speech measures is this talking about?
- zo1 6y ago
  I was curious about the above question, so I did a basic google search out of curiosity. Not sure if this is disturbing, ironic or funny, but here is a blog post from Mozilla: "We need more than deplatforming by Mitchell Baker" https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d... Edit. Added title of the link.
- teddyh 6y ago
  The way I always hear it, the title of a Mozilla blog post was “We need more than deplatforming”¹, which was/is interpreted by some to be an endorsement of deplatforming. 1) https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
  - akalsz 6y ago
    > which was/is interpreted by some to be an endorsement of deplatforming. How else could one interpret it? I'm genuinely curious, as I thought they were pretty clear about it (emphasis mine): > We need solutions that don't start after untold damage has been done. > Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. > Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken:
    - 6y ago

opheliate 6y ago

It's really disappointing to me that Mozilla VPN didn't support Linux from the get-go, and even now, from their FAQ [1], apparently only supports Ubuntu. The code for the client is open source, and can be built on other distributions, but the more pressing question to me is why their own client is necessary at all. Mullvad (which this VPN is based on) allows you to just download WireGuard/OpenVPN config files, which you can use with your own, more widely used/trusted client. The only reason I can see for Mozilla to require the use of their own client is to enforce their device limit, which really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I don't think their desire to impose the device-limit should outweigh the security implications of disallowing me from using the standard WireGuard client. I want to give Mozilla my money for this, but it's really annoying how unfriendly its implementation is. 1: https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/products/vpn/#faq-compatibility https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/products/vpn/#faq-compatibilit...

kfreds 6y ago
Hi! I'm one of Mullvad's founders. I can't speak for Mozilla, but we have our own desktop and mobile apps because it enables us to do more privacy-preserving things with a higher assurance. Consider for instance DNS leaks, Teredo leaks, IPv6 leaks, esoteric DHCP directives that can hack your routing tables, and so on. And these are just a few of the things we were early in mitigating correctly. Consider also the tight relationship between UX and security, and it is clear that we can't rely on "generic VPN clients" to always agree with our design and security preferences. That doesn't mean they are wrong and we are right of course. It's just that we have a very specific mission. One architecture decision we made for our app was to write its backend in Rust, and integrate tightly with the firewalls on Windows, macOS, and Linux. It facilitates stability and therefore reduces the risk of states where data leak outside of the tunnel. Check it out, it's open source. As all security-related things should be. https://github.com/mullvad/mullvadvpn-app https://github.com/mullvad/mullvadvpn-app
- Spivak 6y ago
  But it throws compatibility with devices that don't support your client out the window. Like I might want to have an entire VLAN on my home network route all traffic through the VPN which would happen through my router. But my router only supports common VPN protocols like IPSec, OpenVPN, and WireGuard. Sure, I could make it work with a separate Linux server running your app and some routing but that's far more work than most other VPN providers. I'm fine with warnings in your UI about connections with these protocols being "less secure" like how Zoom handles E2E with phones.

rubyist5eva 6y ago

Killswitch and split tunneling are the only things that are keeping me from using it, I want to give Mozilla my money...come on man.

fulafel 6y ago
What does split tunneling mean in context of a public VPN?
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  I want to split the tunnelling from my local machine, I want certain (whitelisted) applications to bypass the VPN and everything else to use it.

cyberlab 6y ago

I don't like that it's tied to your Mozilla account, which I never used anyway because I like to keep strictly local copies of my credentials using Keepass. Storing secrets in the cloud comes with a risk. Someone (hello NSA) will use your encrypted cloud-based vault as target practice and try to crack it. With a local copy, only I can access it.

maeln 6y ago

I feel like most of those VPN services are using very borderline marketing and like to keep a lot of information blurry. As far as I know, in a lot of country (like France) it is a legal obligation to keep logs and be able to identify one of your customer if the police demands it. Therefore, if you have server in France or any country with similar rules, you can't operate a "0 log" service. And since those kinds of services have servers everywhere (and it is even one of their selling point), it is extremely unlikely that they don't keep you data and will hand it to the police (willingly or not) if requested. And if their own server get breached, you can get the info of all the customers who used the breached server. So I find the claim of those services that they provide "more privacy" pretty lousy. Yes they do hide your IP addresses, but that's far from being the only data use to fingerprint you. And if it is to protect you against a Wi-Fi that you don't trust or your ISP, sure it works, but you move the trust from them to your VPN provider. Fighting against geofencing is good though.

cyberlab 6y ago
I agree. A VPN should only ever be used for the following: - Shifting traffic over a VPN when using untrusted/sketchy wifi hotspots - Spoofing your geo-location to use geo-specific content And that's it. If privacy is your goal, Tor is much more suitable since it's not a single-hop proxy like a VPN and compartments all your traffic. (But of course Tor is not a silver bullet and there are caveats).
- sodality2 6y ago
  What about avoiding copyright letters?
  - cyberlab 6y ago
    If someone is determined enough, they just subpoena the VPN and ask for logs. Since a VPN is a single-hop proxy, your real IP is trivially exposed. Even if the VPN provider claims they don't keep logs. There's no way of proving they don't keep logs, and you need to hope the server you connect to is not compromised in some way. And VPN providers are known to use cheap colocation servers/Virtual Private Servers which have questionable security.

ForHackernews 6y ago

Here, I'll get this over with quick: Argle bargle Mozilla bad something something Pocket integration, Firefox isn't even that fast grr Brendan Eich, one time Thunderbird loaded a tracking pixel.

vehemenz 6y ago
You forgot dropping XUL extension support

warabe 6y ago

Off topic, but... Is Mozilla VPN going to be available in other countries in near future? I would like to hear the roadmap from Mozilla folks. I live in Japan and am wondering when it would become available in my country...

Shadonototro 6y ago

what's the added value compared to just using mullvad? seems like a way for mozilla to gain shares without much effort? kinda disappointing

admax88q 6y ago

The rise of VPNs signals to me that we as an industry have given up on end to end encryption. Instead VPNs try to encrypt the "first hop" with the assumption or hope that the networks further down the line are "secure" Being on an "unsecured" local network shouldnt be an issue for security.

EveYoung 6y ago
How has the industry given up on encryption? In recent years, HTTPS became the new standard and most apps are forced to use encrypted connections as well. Just because VPN ads are calling local networks "unsecure" doesn't mean that they are a true risk.
- admax88q 6y ago
  Not encryption in general, but end to end encryption.
  - EveYoung 6y ago
    In that case a commercial VPNs won't help much anyway.

jonny383 6y ago

Mozilla: a corporation funded by a spying company with a recent shady record of injecting stuff into products secretely (hello Mr robot). What could go wrong in this thought crime?

jrootabega 6y ago

No warrant canary, from what I can see.

kijin 6y ago

I would prefer something a bit more granular than changing my device's network configuration and sending all of its traffic through the same VPN. Just because I want to watch a movie through a server in another country doesn't mean that I also want my video chat app or stock trading app to take the same detour. Since this is Mozilla, how about a Firefox extension that passes all Firefox traffic through a VPN, like Tor Browser does, but doesn't touch any other app? That would differentiate it from most of the other VPN offerings out there. Currently my go-to solution is to set up a local SOCKS proxy with an SSH tunnel and point Firefox at it. It's good enough for testing, but not all services work properly when accessed that way.

npteljes 6y ago
I completely agree with this. If Firefox worked this way, or even just some special tabs of it, that would be great. Brave has TOR tabs AFAIR. Also an easy to use app would be great that can manage other apps' network connections - some could be blocked, some could be redirected through a VPN, etc.

acatton 6y ago

I genuinely don't understand what is the incentive for using Mozilla VPN? I'm a Mozilla and Firefox fanboy, but this new product had me sceptical since the beginning. They literally bring nothing to the table except their brand name. They don't even do the server side, but just resell Mullvad's infrastructure with their brand. I'm already a Mullvad customer, and if I were to switch to Mozilla VPN: * It would not be available in my country (Germany) right away * I would have to join a waitlist * I would have to pay with my credit card, instead of cash-by-mail. (Great privacy improvement! /s) * I would have to use Mozilla's GUI instead of the wg-quick CLI. (The use of wg-quick is documented by Mullvad in addition to Mullvad's GUI, but I haven't found any wg-quick documentation on Mozilla VPN) All of this for the same infrastructure, the same service (number of devices, ...) at the same price. What the hell are you doing Mozilla?!

Black101 6y ago
If Mullvad doesn't know who the customers are, that would be the only possible upside?
- Cu3PO42 6y ago
  But they don't really know that anyway. Your account is just a number and when you mail cash you include a token that they can tie to your account number. Obviously they could log your IP address (which they promise not to), but that's an issue even if you go through Mozilla to purchase the service.
  - jdiez17 6y ago
    I wonder if the cash-by-mail payment option creates some kind of legal liability for Mullvad. If it suddenly became very popular, I would imagine the financial authorities would be rather unsatisfied with "oh, we receive a bunch of cash from anonymous customers by mail, nothing dodgy here..."
Fergusonb 6y ago
If you're using mullvad you have likely already done a lot of research on which provider you want to use. A lot of consumers are interested in a quality VPN but wouldn't do this kind of research. Mozilla provide additional eyeballs and billing support, and mullvad provides the service itself. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. They're not in competition for your money, they're targeting different demographics.

jdewitt 6y ago

I can't find a single reason why Mozilla should be wasting resources on VPN when there are already plenty of companies on that grind. I can't find any good reason for encouraging people to circumvent network controls, or throw more networking complexity into what was previously very simple for users. The constant marketing of 'you need a vpn' is super counter productive for users because they have no idea what it even is, what it can break, or why they needed it in the first place. I've run into plenty of folks that said they use vpn because someone offered it to them for free, not because they needed it for any reason. It's stupid shit like this that makes the development of their key software languish.

IgorPartola 6y ago
I didn’t need a VPN until I did: Recently visited family in a different state and stayed with them for a week. They had a fast internet connection but something in their router made establishing a new TCP connection take forever. I bought a subscription to Mozilla VPN and viola, now my TCP connections open quickly again. Also bonus: I don’t pollute their ad results with my searches. While yes I could dig into their router problem, they had no issues with how things worked and I needed to get work done.

hexis 6y ago

Why would anyone trust Mozilla with their private browsing data? https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

kaba0 6y ago
Supporting the transparency of politics has nothing to do with user privacy. Mozilla has an excellent track record on the latter and they put up a great fight in a seemingly lost battle.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pmurt7 6y ago

I switched to Brave, I feel it's the new Firefox really (both Brave and Firefox were founded by Brendan Eich). IPFS, Tor, built-in ad blocker in Rust, crypto, that's what I want in my browser. VPN is so 2010.

approxim8ion 6y ago
>VPN is so 2010 https://brave.com/firewall-vpn/ https://brave.com/firewall-vpn/

gregjw 6y ago

I honestly just thought this was a reskin on top of Mullvad

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

f6v 6y ago

From their website: > No logging of your network activity Does it mean I can torrent whatever I want? I mean, if there's a copyright notice, how're they going to know it was me?

notRobot 6y ago
> Does it mean I can torrent whatever I want? Yes
edm0nd 6y ago
Just use a private tracker site. Copyright and DMCA notices are a thing of the past if you are using private torrent groups and trackers.
- f6v 6y ago
  I was just wondering how they'll respond to any copyright notices if they don't log network activity.

miniyarov 6y ago

If anyone wants to have a mobile app that creates VPN on DigitalOcean, AWS or GCP checkout ZudVPN.com (https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN) Completely transparent server cloud init: https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN/blob/master/src/providers/DigitalOcean/cloudconfig.tsx https://github.com/zudvpn/ZudVPN/blob/master/src/providers/D...

JustFinishedBSG 6y ago

Can someone explains what's the point of "VPNs" (VPT in reality, there's no network here, just a tunnel) ? I see the point of having a VPN to my own network but paying for a tunnel to some random place.... why ?

ajsfoux234 6y ago
A few use-cases I can think of: GeoIP spoofing (watching streaming shows not available in your country), bypassing IP bans from places, preventing DMCA letters from torrenting, and getting past restrictive firewalls that block websites
Aaronmacaron 6y ago
Here's a few reasons: - You trust the VPN provider more than your ISP - You want to circumvent geoblocking (Netflix, Sports broadcasts, etc...) - You have to use an untrusted Wi-Fi - You want to circumvent your government blocking certain websites/services

flurdy 6y ago

All I'd want from Firefox would be a browser based VPN. As in per tab or container. That I would appreciate. Mostly for GeoIP restrictions for some sites. A VPN for the whole system I can use other providers who's main business is VPN.

terrycody 6y ago
When in Beta, firefox VPN is indeed a browser addon, I used it for months, really good, but they now removed the addon, and only support desktop version, I don't know why, is this a stupid idea? Why not support browser plugin?