4 ms·
Given what you said about not using it for anything sensitive, I'm assuming you're not actually logging into your bank... right?
by Sophira 1y ago
Given what you said about not using it for anything sensitive, I'm assuming you're not actually logging into your bank... right?
- lxgr 1y agoEverything is TLS-encrypted anyway these days, so the primary concern is metadata privacy. When it comes to that, I trust VPN providers about as much as ISPs (i.e. absolutely not).
- rasengan 1y agoVP.NET doesn't require any trust at all [1][2]. [1] https://vp.net/l/en-US/blog/Don%27t-Trust-Verify https://vp.net/l/en-US/blog/Don%27t-Trust-Verify [2] I work for VP.NET and can answer any questions regarding the technology as well!
- lxgr 1y agoInteresting! But "no trust required" is a strong statement; don't I need to trust at least Intel? :)
- bitxbitxbitcoin 1y agoMy advice is never to trust bad intel ;).
- rasengan 1y agoYou do need to trust Intel as it relates to deterministic and verifiable SGX hardware. SGX has had issues, but these are fixed pretty quickly [1]. Creating the isolated layer like SGX gives you verification of what is running on VP.NET's servers though, and the code is available to review and compile yourself so you can verify it is the same [2]. From a defense in depth standpoint, the more layered and isolated securities, the better. [1] https://sgx.fail https://sgx.fail [2] https://github.com/vpdotnet/vpnetd-sgx https://github.com/vpdotnet/vpnetd-sgx
- Sophira 1y agoAnd VPN providers who ask you to install a CA root cert. (I don't think PureVPN does this from a casual search, but there are VPN providers that do.)