3 ms·

Did people assume OpenVPN traffic was obfuscated in such a way that it was not recognizable as OpenVPN traffic? Honestly I'm kind of surprised it got undetected

• bravetraveler 2y ago
  +1. Not to be rude, yet if someone finds this surprising and of interest, perhaps they need new interests. This might not be the one for them - right now or ever. I'm not judging. Just saying. To show how serious I am, I'll do my own version of the paper while laying in bed relying solely on experience. I'm joking in case that wasn't obvious. Off-the-bottom-shelf consumer equipment from over fifteen years ago would report on this traffic. OpenVPN has been easy to both USE and fingerprint - these are directly related. It will continue to be. The balance OVPN struck makes it extremely commodity. This is all well/good. As far as things can really have goals... it never aimed to be the fingerprint resistant answer. It's the commodity VPN supported by nearly everything. To be frank: it achieved the goal of obfuscation; you see OpenVPN instead of the real traffic. The horror. Everything everywhere is a trade. This trades fingerprint resistance for ubiquity. I'm slowly starting to understand how things get criticized for being "academic". They have a lot of people, words, and effort confirming things any living practitioner could tell you. That's why I may seem harsh. I'm left to determine this is propaganda or marketing fodder. Any protocol or scheme is prone to fingerprinting. That's the game. Fingerprinting is a question of attention/want, and they picked the most obvious one. Why? I'm asking and looking suspiciously at several unnecessary named authors.