VPN services

[dombanks]

does anyone use a VPN service? im after recomendations for a fast and reliable one

 

 

[ianstewartshouse]

I use Cloak and find it good also has an App

[Northwarks]

I get to travel for work a fair bit so have to rely on 'free' Wi-Fi, I use WiTopia, lots of options and servers all over the world if you travel. I was able to use iPlayer out in India on a business trip by selecting a VPN server in the UK  - I'm a licence fee payer  . 

 

Works with IOS, no need for an app just add to VPN settings.

[ianstewartshouse]

Yes I had Witopia for a couple of years too. I would recommend either

[RoboS]

I highly recommend BTguard as they are reliable, they do not store logs, unlike most VPN Servers.  Servers located in US, UK, Netherlands (fastest), and Canada. Remember that you can still get DNS Leakage, when your VPN service drops out, your real ID is shown. 

[Lyonspride]

On 06/02/2019 at 01:02, Rimbo said:

Guys, sorry for getting an old discussion back but maybe someone knows which VPN service is suitable for torrenting?

Any VPN should be good, check their policy on giving out personal data of it's users though.

There are sites where you can test your VPN connection for DNS leaks/etc.

Your next problem is finding a site that isn't blocked or shut down, because despite 90%+ of all torrents being perfectly legal, I have to use VPN and Tor, then use the .onion mirror of the site I want, basically using what the media calls the "deep web" (I call it the "unfiltered internet"), because it's not just ISPs playing the "lets block everything" game. It's a lot of fuss just to download some old software, or an old driver for a hardware brand that no longer exists.

The other issue is that since David Camerons pron filters, some unknown entity controls the IP blacklists used by major websites, and they've gone and added all known VPN IP addresses so that many major websites become inaccessible over VPN.

However,  i'm increasingly seeing non-EU websites (especially in USA) blocking all EU citizens because of EU article 13, so a VPN is fast becoming essential if you don't want to be locked inside the EU internet.

[Blatman]

VPN's... hmmmmm. The only question here is do you trust the vendor? VPN's MUST have an end-point. The start point is your device. It initiates the encrypted connection. But for your internet traffic to actually reach and return the internet pages you want it MUST be decrypted. The only way to do this is if you have the encryption key which is the property of the VPN provider. The impression is that they are more secure and I am sure in some instances they are, but the vendor CAN read all your traffic. Then lets think about this. If the user has nothing to hide, why use a VPN or a TOR browser. Trying to "sneak around" the ISP is likely to bring the user to the attention of those who may be watching because they're going to ask WHY this traffic is being hidden.

ISP's keep all your browsing data for a year by law (last time I checked). So what? Does anyone think they are actually reading it? I get through so much stuff on the internet I could keep one person employed full-time keeping track. The numbers for ISP or "Government snooping" simply don't add up. What does add up is that when they catch suspected criminals they can go back through their history and see what they have been looking at. Imagine if we weren't able to prove that the 7/7 bombers had been visiting jihadi websites and how to make bombs. You think they weren't using the TOR browser and VPN's? Really? The one thing VPN's and TOR can do is get around geo-fencing. But has that ever actually stood in the way of anything I do? No, not once. And I like "gentlemans special interest websites" as much as the next man...  

Lets not forget that the vast majority of websites these days are HTTPS, which means the browser itself and what it is doing is encrypted. It is almost impossible for these sessions to be hijacked. However this is being conveniently ignored by the VPN vendors for 1 reason. THEY WANT YOUR MONEY EVERY MONTH. I use my phones and laptops all over the northern hemisphere in airports, stations, shopping malls and all sorts of places. Not once in 10 years of doing this have I had a problem.

Then there's getting drivers for old gear from the dark web. Hilarious. Just asking for them to be filled with all kinds if interesting code. Ever done a BINWalk (or whatever) on the code? I wouldn't download a driver for anything from an .onion site because unless you look, there is no way to know that they aren't re-written to include things we may not expect.

 

[Lyonspride]

On 07/02/2019 at 18:45, Blatman said:

ISP's keep all your browsing data for a year by law (last time I checked). So what? Does anyone think they are actually reading it?

 

 

Here's the thing, if someone wanted a patsy, it would be extremely easy to deliberately misinterpret a persons browser history. In a court of law you would be judged by your peers, and what that actually means is 12 technophobes who know absolutely nothing about computers or the internet, it'd be your word against some so called "expert witness" (a computer science graduate who's never even reinstalled windows).

I had a similar situation with a former employer, who went through my browser history looking for sites I shouldn't have been visiting (because some nosey cow didn't like me), sites that had nothing to do with my job, they came at me with a list of some 800 websites and asked me what they were, fortunately I was able to identify them as sites serving ads to sites that I use every day as part of my job, BUT had I not known what I know about computers and the internet, had it been anyone else in that company, they would have taken those 800 odd sites and gone down the "gross misconduct" instant dismissal route.

This is why VPNs are a good idea, they protect you from deliberate misinterpretation of your online activities. One day you click on a suggested Youtube video about Jimmy Saville, the next day your ex wife is using that to prove your a danger to your children. People play it all down with the "i've got nothing to hide" statements, but when you visit an "innocent" website you don't know who owns that site, what other sites they own, what other sites are also hosted on that server, how many hundreds of servers are loading in ads onto that site, etc etc... The fact is you won't know what you've got to hide until someone finds it, but by that time your screwed.

I don't care is my ISP reads my history or my data, I care about who else might get their hands on it.

 

 

[Kingster]

Just as an aside. This thread was actually ressurected by a click-baiter - obviously happy for genuine members to discuss, but bear this in kind. 

[Blatman]

Not the first time you've displayed a fundamental lack of how the law actually works. It seems also your employers lacked a basic understanding of how computers work. You'll also now find that many employers consider the use of VPN software on work computers for the specific purpose of obfuscating the browsing history is actually against HR policy.

A patsy is someone who takes the fall for the wrongdoing of others. Your example is not this.

28 minutes ago, Lyonspride said:

One day you click on a suggested Youtube video about Jimmy Saville, the next day your ex wife is using that to prove your a danger to your children.

If that was to actually happen then there is a much bigger problem in that marriage! And how does just looking at a Jimmy Saville video prove (PROVE!!!) anything? In an of itself it proves nothing. Not a thing.

28 minutes ago, Lyonspride said:

but when you visit an "innocent" website you don't know who owns that site, what other sites they own, what other sites are also hosted on that server, how many hundreds of servers are loading in ads onto that site, etc etc... The fact is you won't know what you've got to hide until someone finds it, but by that time your screwed.

Finds what? Legitimate sites won't be hosting or advertising anything illegal. Your employers might not like it. Your wife might not like it but that's not even in the same galaxy as illegal with a risk of getting your collar felt. Or the legitimate site is on the same server as something "bad" and now you have to prove that the "bad site" wasn't visited? Are you reading what you write? Using a legitimate site that is hosted on the same server as (lets say) a site known for selling drugs isn't illegal. Buying drugs is illegal. Living next to a drug dealer isn't illegal. Going next door to buy drugs is. I'm pretty sure the law can tell the difference. But let me just ask, do you now routinely check what else is hosted on the servers of every website you visit? How does one do that? I'm quote handy with a keyboard. I'd love to know so I can try it myself.

As I have said before, in the UK you are innocent until proven guilty and modern computer forensics will show if your browsing history is incidental or deliberate clicking. If you knew anything about computers you'd know this.

[DonPeffers]

Worrying story today on BBC  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47189038

"Grindr and Tinder 'must not risk children's safety'."

Lack of age verification is the risk factor.

[Blatman]

Not especially difficult to get around age verification.

In my view making the various web companies liable for this is helping parents successfully divorce themselves from their primary responsibility which is looking after their children. Some parent finds their kid on an inappropriate website they will go straight on the defensive, throw their hands in the air and shout "not my fault" then blame the web companies for making it too easy. 

The trouble is far too many parents seem to me to encourage their kids to be out of sight, out of mind in their rooms where they can surf the information superhighway to their hearts content. The kids seem to be safe in the knowledge that their parents, in all likleyhood, lack the intelligence and basic competence, let alone the will, to oversee their progeny. In this day and age saying "I'm not very good with technology" is not a reasonable excuse if the parents then capitulate to their childrens demands for technology.

These are the same parents who have successfully managed to make teachers and the police utterly impotent when it comes to disciplining children. Well done militant parenting, now there's no-one looking after your kids for the really important things that could make a real difference to your childrens happiness and safety.

Anyone seen the film Idiocracy? If you haven't, try and watch it. It's not very good but in 100 years it could well be on the news as a amazing prediction of the world we (could be) living in.

 

[Lyonspride]

On 08/02/2019 at 23:12, Blatman said:

 hosting or advertising anything illegal. Your employers might not like it. Your wife might not like it but that's not even in the same galaxy as illegal with a risk of getting your collar felt. Or the legitimate site is on the same server as something "bad" and now you have to prove that the "bad site" wasn't visited? Are you reading what you write? Using a legitimate site that is hosted on the same server as (lets say) a site known for selling drugs isn't illegal. Buying drugs is illegal. Living next to a drug dealer isn't illegal. Going next door to buy drugs is. I'm pretty sure the law can tell the difference. But let me just ask, do you now routinely check what else is hosted on the servers of every website you visit? How does one do that? I'm quote handy with a keyboard. I'd love to know so I can try it myself.

As I have said before, in the UK you are innocent until proven guilty and modern computer forensics will show if your browsing history is incidental or deliberate clicking. If you knew anything about computers you'd know this.

I wasn't talking about anything illegal, I was talking about being dragged over hot coals for having a DNS history that includes sites that are not required for work, as in ad hosting servers.The point i'm making is that you can do absolutely nothing wrong, but that can in the eyes of someone far less knowledgeable, be used as a stick to beat you with.
If enough people with any authority over you, all have insufficient knowledge, then on a professional level at least you have absolutely no chance, and considering that some websites load in more than 1000 ads, the chances of your DNS history looking bad to someone with layman level of knowledge and a determination to "get you", is extremely high.

I was once dragged over hot coals for "creating software to do my job for me", the "evidence" was a few innocent batch files which I created to carry out backup tasks to the server, but because nobody understood DOS, they actually believed this idiot of a manager (who saw me as a threat) until I dissected each file and presented them with a full explanation of what each command did (taken from MS website). This was difficult enough, because they didn't want to let me do this.

We got a little stuck at XCOPY, which they tried to claim was something dodgy, as "COPY is the official DOS command". "Why does it have an X? what does the X do? is it a virus?".
It was a bit like Mark Zuckerberg being questioned at congress (watch the video).

A lot of equally stupid stuff came up, but the fact is when what I call "tech muggles" have positions of power, it's extremely easy for people do to wrong without actually doing anything wrong, and that is why VPNs and other privacy increasing measures are invaluable.

Also I don't use VPN at work, that would be stupid, no I pipe a separate connection through an encrypted SSH tunnel over port 8002 (always wide open as it's used by managements Apple devices), I then remote desktop to my home PC over that encrypted SSH tunnel and use that during my breaks if I need to to do any personal web browsing.
 

[Blatman]

9 hours ago, Lyonspride said:

no I pipe a separate connection through an encrypted SSH tunnel over port 8002 (always wide open as it's used by managements Apple devices), I then remote desktop to my home PC over that encrypted SSH tunnel and use that during my breaks if I need to to do any personal web browsing.

Your work I.T policy allow this? Or perhaps there isn't one and you are taking advantage that there isn't one. So perhaps your guilty conscience in this case is well founded. Perhaps the folks with an axe to grind had an axe to grind...

And you were talking about something illegal. You said:

Here's the thing, if someone wanted a patsy, it would be extremely easy to deliberately misinterpret a persons browser history. In a court of law you would be judged by your peers, and what that actually means is 12 technophobes who know absolutely nothing about computers or the internet, it'd be your word against some so called "expert witness" (a computer science graduate who's never even reinstalled windows).

To be in court in front of a jury you have to have had something more than have a dodgy browsing history which the luddites at work didn't like!!!

A browser history that doesn't include PROOF of actual illegal activity isn't going to land you in an actual court. And how can you misinterpret a browser history? It's a factual record of sites visited. If one of the sites was the (now taken down) Silk Road then sure you may have some questions to answer but you'd still be a long way from court. An illegal transaction would have to be proved. Looking at Silk Road isn't in and of itself a crime any more than having random advertising cookies in your history which can be easily explained.

I watched Zuckerberg and the Senators but given our radically different interpretations of the law, and the fact that U.S law doesn't apply over here I suspect our conclusions are also quite different.

[Lyonspride]

^^ I actually mean't the utterly stupid questions that "senior" officials were asking him, it really shows how dangerous a situation you can get into when it comes to anything IT related, how do you convince people like that?