Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #3725
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.networking |
| Subject | Re: virtual vpns |
| Date | 2016-04-28 13:56 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nftimi$5ro$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <nfr4c7$uif$1@dont-email.me> <nfr4ev$urr$1@dont-email.me> <nfr5nk$20o$2@dont-email.me> <nfr6ng$8cb$1@dont-email.me> <nfrc2g$sgl$1@dont-email.me> |
"William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote in message
news:nfrc2g$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
Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web