Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

VPN Overview Rewrite #2117

Closed
wants to merge 26 commits into from
Closed

VPN Overview Rewrite #2117

wants to merge 26 commits into from

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Apr 8, 2023

Changes proposed in this PR:

  • Incorporate additional info links into the article
  • Update info and elaborate on things that need to be more in-depth

closes #2118

  • I have disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest in my post.
  • I agree to grant Privacy Guides a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, irrevocable license with the right to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sublicensees, to reproduce, modify, display, perform, relicense, and distribute my contribution as part of this project.
  • I am the sole author of this work.
  • I agree to the Community Code of Conduct.

@ghost ghost added the t:correction content corrections or errors label Apr 8, 2023
@ghost ghost self-assigned this Apr 8, 2023
@ghost ghost changed the title remove additional info section from VPN overview Remove Additional Information Links Apr 8, 2023
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Apr 8, 2023

Deploy Preview for privacyguides ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 0bf7768
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/privacyguides/deploys/64ddb3c69597330008c6d80c
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-2117.preview.privacyguides.dev
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@dngray dngray mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2023
2 tasks
@ghost ghost changed the title Remove Additional Information Links VPN Overview Rewrite Apr 8, 2023
@quackerex
Copy link
Contributor

quackerex commented Apr 9, 2023

What are your thoughts on mentioning Multi-Party Relays (MPRs)?
Article about MPRs: Why VPNs are Wrong and MPRs are Right

@jonaharagon
Copy link
Member

We should look into them more and probably mention them. The main issue is that the only two commercial options I know of are the two mentioned in that blog post (the blog author's and iCloud), but since Tor is also technically a Multi-Party Relay, it would be good to outline the different threat models they serve compared to traditional VPNs.

@jonaharagon jonaharagon added c:providers service providers and similar centralized/federated services c:guides full-length guides and content and removed t:correction content corrections or errors labels Apr 9, 2023
@dngray
Copy link
Member

dngray commented Apr 9, 2023

I also wouldn't be opposed to writing something about DVPNs and mentioning https://www.ivpn.net/privacy-guides/comparing-dvpns-centralized-vpns-privacy-protection/ and the risks with them and also why we don't recommend them. They do come up from time to time and it would be nice to be able to point to a particular section. While that article is by a centralized VPN service, it does raise some very important points being that:

  • You don't have transparency over who runs the nodes, they could be logging
  • Most are not multi-node services like Tor, and are single nodes, which yield less security than regular centralized VPN service with infrastructure that is regularly audited and set up by professionals
  • A lot of them are closed networks, (like .i2p, .onion) and there is no outproxy for regular data.
  • I briefly tried to discuss it here https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/decentralized-vpns-and-routing-networks/11818 but we all came to the same conclusion
  • Further when I last checked some were rather lacking in documentation, most of t hem have glossy websites and I think are intended to push some "cryptocurrency".
  • and had very few nodes in general. One of them I looked at was about 400, meaning that a some kind of sybil attack would be quite possible with low cost to the attacker.

@jermanuts
Copy link
Contributor

@jonaharagon The problem with all of MPRs (two-hop) is that they require some server (or servers) which relay the traffic and someone has to pay for those servers and their associated bandwidth. iCloud Private Relay and most VPNs are not free, so the user is the one who pays. Tor (three hops) is different: instead of having a single provider such as Apple or your VPN provider, Tor servers are operated by the Tor community on a volunteer basis and are free to users.

While the problem with tor is the 1st and 3rd nodes with MPRs (two hops), you have to trust the both relay companies to not correlate/share information about connected user.

@dngray sounds good. It is also worth to mention https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/public-wifi/ (biggest selling point for VPNs)

@jonaharagon
Copy link
Member

jonaharagon commented Apr 12, 2023

The problem with all of MPRs (two-hop) is that they require some server (or servers) which relay the traffic and someone has to pay for those servers and their associated bandwidth.

Well, this is not a problem, all of our VPN recommendations are paid services, as they should be.

@dngray it's worth noting that I think "dVPNs" are a different sort of service than the multi-hop VPNs @quackerex was referring to.

@privacyguides-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request has been mentioned on Privacy Guides. There might be relevant details there:

https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/self-hosted-multi-hop-vpn-icloud-private-relay-alternative/12321/1

@jermanuts
Copy link
Contributor

Well, this is not a problem, all of our VPN recommendations are paid services, as they should be.

I actually meant that you have to pay using your credit card to use these commercial MPRs.

@quackerex
Copy link
Contributor

quackerex commented Apr 12, 2023

While the problem with tor is the 1st and 3rd nodes with MPRs (two hops), you have to trust the both relay companies to not correlate/share information about connected user.

Egress layer can route traffic through multiple servers. So they have to correlate traffic between multiple server providers (In this case Akamai, Cloudflare, and Fastly). I see this as impossible scenario.
However, this is not the case for VPN as someone can easily see your traffic at a central point.

Architecture of iCloud Private Relay

It is also important to point out that ODoH is also used in MPRs which is similar to DNS over Tor.

@ghost ghost marked this pull request as ready for review May 19, 2023 22:40
@@ -83,6 +83,10 @@ You should also be wary that many VPN review sites are merely advertising vehicl

[Our VPN Recommendations](../vpn.md){ .md-button }

## Multi-Party Relays

Multi-Party Relays use multiple nodes owned by different parties, such that no individual party knows enough to track you. This is the idea behind Tor, but now there are some paid services that try to emulate this model.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it is important to highlight that web browsing with MPRs is on par with non-proxied, and sometimes even faster (this is not the case for Tor or VPNs ).
This is achieved using the MASQUE (Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption) specification standardized by the IETF.


Encryption offered by VPN providers is between your devices and their servers. It guarantees that this specific link is secure. This is a step up from using unencrypted proxies where an adversary on the network can intercept the communications between your devices and said proxies and modify them. However, encryption between your apps or browsers with the service providers are not handled by this encryption.

In order to keep what you actually do on the websites you visit private and secure, you must use HTTPS. This will keep your passwords, session tokens, and queries safe from the VPN provider. Always check for the lock icon in your browser's URL bar to mitigate downgrade attacks like [SSL Strip](https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-09/Marlinspike/BlackHat-DC-09-Marlinspike-Defeating-SSL.pdf).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should probably just recommend HTTPS-only mode instead, no one is going to check little locks everywhere.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the lock icon is going the way of the dodo anyway.

@dngray
Copy link
Member

dngray commented Aug 17, 2023

@dngray dngray closed this Aug 17, 2023
@dngray dngray mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2023
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c:guides full-length guides and content c:providers service providers and similar centralized/federated services
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

VPN ownership article for blog
7 participants