Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #3719 > unrolled thread

virtual vpns and XP

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  virtual vpns and XP "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 15:40 -0400
    Re: virtual vpns and XP "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 15:41 -0400
      Re: virtual vpns and XP William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-27 19:59 +0000
        Re: virtual vpns "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 16:20 -0400
          Re: virtual vpns William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-27 21:48 +0000
            Re: virtual vpns "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 13:56 -0400
              Re: virtual vpns William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-28 18:39 +0000
            Re: virtual vpns "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 14:00 -0400
              Re: virtual vpns William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-28 18:41 +0000
                Re: virtual vpns Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-04-28 21:18 +0200
              Re: virtual vpns "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-04-28 20:56 +0200
    Re: virtual vpns and XP William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-04-27 19:53 +0000

#3719 — virtual vpns and XP

    Does anyone use or know anything about VPNs? There sisan interesting 
website at www.vpngate.net that allows virtual vpn access for anonymous 
networking. It's supposesd to be better than proxy servers. Mostly web proxy 
servers are what people use. And sometimes don't change their DNS servers to 
public ones like google for secure browsing. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3720

"Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:nfr4c7$uif$1@dont-email.me...
>    Does anyone use or know anything about VPNs? There sisan interesting 
> website at www.vpngate.net that allows virtual vpn access for anonymous 
> networking. It's supposesd to be better than proxy servers. Mostly web 
> proxy servers are what people use. And sometimes don't change their DNS 
> servers to public ones like google for secure browsing.

    Sorry that shouldn't be XP but linux. I guess I'm asking about the 
website. Has anyone used it and found it good for use?

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3722

On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
> "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:nfr4c7$uif$1@dont-email.me...
>>    Does anyone use or know anything about VPNs? There sisan interesting 
>> website at www.vpngate.net that allows virtual vpn access for anonymous 
>> networking. It's supposesd to be better than proxy servers. Mostly web 
>> proxy servers are what people use. And sometimes don't change their DNS 
>> servers to public ones like google for secure browsing.
>
>     Sorry that shouldn't be XP but linux. I guess I'm asking about the 
> website. Has anyone used it and found it good for use?

The problem always is how much do you trust them, and what basis do you
have for tristing them. For example they could be run by say NSA or the
equivalent in China/russia/.... 


>
> Bill
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3723 — Re: virtual vpns

"William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...

> The problem always is how much do you trust them, and what basis do you
> have for tristing them. For example they could be run by say NSA or the
> equivalent in China/russia/....

    Yeah I see what you mean. My fedora has openvpn. I would like to use 
L2TP which is more secure than openvpn. Trust is the major issue. Would TOR 
be the better thing to go with. I'm not up to anything it's just that I 
think I have a right to not be watched. And have frames and payload 
examined.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3724 — Re: virtual vpns

On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...
>
>> The problem always is how much do you trust them, and what basis do you
>> have for tristing them. For example they could be run by say NSA or the
>> equivalent in China/russia/....
>
>     Yeah I see what you mean. My fedora has openvpn. I would like to use 
> L2TP which is more secure than openvpn. Trust is the major issue. Would TOR 
> be the better thing to go with. I'm not up to anything it's just that I 
> think I have a right to not be watched. And have frames and payload 
> examined.

Agreed.
Tor is blocked by a lot of places. 
Why do you claim that l2tp is more secure than openvpn? It just provides
the tunnel-- no security.
To see a contrary view
http://www.howtogeek.com/211329/which-is-the-best-vpn-protocol-pptp-vs.-openvpn-vs.-l2tpipsec-vs.-sstp/

Of course they could just be NSA flacks, so you should really use
PTPP:-)

On your side, your ISP knows that you are sending traffic to the vpn. It
does not know what. The VPN provider knows everything since they decrypt
the traffic on their end and know what the traffic is between you and
the other end. They also know what the link is between your address and
the remote address you are connecting to  ( unless you then go through
yet another vpn). 

The problem is not the travelling out of your machine to the vpn server,
but in that vpn server. But that is always the problem. 




>
> Bill
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3725 — Re: virtual vpns

"William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
news:nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> The problem always is how much do you trust them, and what basis do you
>>> have for tristing them. For example they could be run by say NSA or the
>>> equivalent in China/russia/....
>>
>>     Yeah I see what you mean. My fedora has openvpn. I would like to use
>> L2TP which is more secure than openvpn. Trust is the major issue. Would 
>> TOR
>> be the better thing to go with. I'm not up to anything it's just that I
>> think I have a right to not be watched. And have frames and payload
>> examined.
>
> Agreed.
> Tor is blocked by a lot of places.
> Why do you claim that l2tp is more secure than openvpn? It just provides
> the tunnel-- no security.
> To see a contrary view
> http://www.howtogeek.com/211329/which-is-the-best-vpn-protocol-pptp-vs.-openvpn-vs.-l2tpipsec-vs.-sstp/
>
> Of course they could just be NSA flacks, so you should really use
> PTPP:-)

    You mean point to point tunneling protocol? With linux? I thought MS 
owned that.

> On your side, your ISP knows that you are sending traffic to the vpn. It
> does not know what. The VPN provider knows everything since they decrypt
> the traffic on their end and know what the traffic is between you and
> the other end. They also know what the link is between your address and
> the remote address you are connecting to  ( unless you then go through
> yet another vpn).

    And one VPN slows me enough. So changing resolvers to google resolvers 
won't help ? My ISP will know I am not using their DNS servers. But there 
other end...I wouldn't think they could find my ISP's DNS servers.

> The problem is not the travelling out of your machine to the vpn server,
> but in that vpn server. But that is always the problem.

    Tor scatters stuff more I believe. But's slow too sometimes. IDK if it 
changes VPNs or poxies every few seconds or not. But they have an encryption 
protocol. A tunnel that goes up and down...IDK.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3727 — Re: virtual vpns

On 2016-04-28, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
> news:nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>> The problem always is how much do you trust them, and what basis do you
>>>> have for tristing them. For example they could be run by say NSA or the
>>>> equivalent in China/russia/....
>>>
>>>     Yeah I see what you mean. My fedora has openvpn. I would like to use
>>> L2TP which is more secure than openvpn. Trust is the major issue. Would 
>>> TOR
>>> be the better thing to go with. I'm not up to anything it's just that I
>>> think I have a right to not be watched. And have frames and payload
>>> examined.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> Tor is blocked by a lot of places.
>> Why do you claim that l2tp is more secure than openvpn? It just provides
>> the tunnel-- no security.
>> To see a contrary view
>> http://www.howtogeek.com/211329/which-is-the-best-vpn-protocol-pptp-vs.-openvpn-vs.-l2tpipsec-vs.-sstp/
>>
>> Of course they could just be NSA flacks, so you should really use
>> PTPP:-)
>
>     You mean point to point tunneling protocol? With linux? I thought MS 
> owned that.

That was a sarcastic statement. PTPP was the  very weakest of the
protocols they discussed. my sarcasm was that since they said it was the
very weakest, if they are NSA flaks, maybe it is actually the strongest. 
I do not believe that at all. 
I tend to believe openvpn is strong enough, and according to them,
stronger than p2p/ipsec But I have no expertise to evaluate. And anyway,
with openvpn, the problem as I point out is the trust in the vpn server,
not in the strength of the tunnel. 

>
>> On your side, your ISP knows that you are sending traffic to the vpn. It
>> does not know what. The VPN provider knows everything since they decrypt
>> the traffic on their end and know what the traffic is between you and
>> the other end. They also know what the link is between your address and
>> the remote address you are connecting to  ( unless you then go through
>> yet another vpn).
>
>     And one VPN slows me enough. So changing resolvers to google resolvers 
> won't help ? My ISP will know I am not using their DNS servers. But there 
> other end...I wouldn't think they could find my ISP's DNS servers.

But they do not know whether you are not using their resolver because
you are not using any resolver, or because you are using the vpn. They
do know that you hooked up to the vpn-- you used their resolver to do
that, and they can see that traffic is going to the vpn-- the traffice,
encrypted still goes through them.

And it is easy enough to figure out that the remote end actually is a
vpn server. 



>
>> The problem is not the travelling out of your machine to the vpn server,
>> but in that vpn server. But that is always the problem.
>
>     Tor scatters stuff more I believe. But's slow too sometimes. IDK if it 
> changes VPNs or poxies every few seconds or not. But they have an encryption 
> protocol. A tunnel that goes up and down...IDK.

But a lot of places do accept Tor traffic, and anyway, there is still
the problem of the tor server. It still sees the unencrypted traffic. 

Note that openvpn DOES use encryption. So none of the traffic along the
pipeline can be read, except the fact that there is traffic. 

.

>
> Bill
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3726 — Re: virtual vpns

"William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
news:nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...

Another thing I don't trust is that selinux. I don't know what it's for, to 
help security or something. When I saw NSA I disabled it for good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3728 — Re: virtual vpns

On 2016-04-28, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
> news:nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...
>
> Another thing I don't trust is that selinux. I don't know what it's for, to 
> help security or something. When I saw NSA I disabled it for good.

One of the NSA mandates is to protect comminications of US
companies/citizens/etc. And selinux is open source, so it could be
audited to see if there are any backdoors. I do not know if they have
been.

>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3730 — Re: virtual vpns

On Thursday 28 Apr 2016 20:41, William Unruh conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.networking...

> On 2016-04-28, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>> news:nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Another thing I don't trust is that selinux. I don't know what it's
>> for, to help security or something. When I saw NSA I disabled it for
>> good.
> 
> One of the NSA mandates is to protect comminications of US
> companies/citizens/etc. And selinux is open source, so it could be
> audited to see if there are any backdoors. I do not know if they have
> been.

Linus has vetted the code.  It does not contain any backdoors, but he 
did confirm that the NSA have asked him to put a backdoor in the kernel 
(and that he has refused to do so).

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3729 — Re: virtual vpns

On 2016-04-28 20:00, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message 
> news:nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me...
> 
> Another thing I don't trust is that selinux. I don't know what it's for, to 
> help security or something. When I saw NSA I disabled it for good.

Then you should read it up, because it is nothing related to what you think.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3721

On 2016-04-27, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>     Does anyone use or know anything about VPNs? There sisan interesting 
> website at www.vpngate.net that allows virtual vpn access for anonymous 
> networking. It's supposesd to be better than proxy servers. Mostly web proxy 
> servers are what people use. And sometimes don't change their DNS servers to 
> public ones like google for secure browsing. 

I think you need to be more specific about your questions. Also, XP is
not a Linux system, so help with XP and vpns would probably be better
from other newsgroups. 
Lots of people use VPNs. 
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web