VPN problem

jshm2

Basically means that IP is busted and no longer for your use, you'll need to either use another VPN service or location. 

Avast, Opera, Brave and other "free" providers tend to get busted rather quickly. Hence it's best to use a paid provider or a smaller obscure provider. The problem with the latter being data and/or privacy. 

bob2302

Grandad99 said:

bob2302 Why?

Originally, public WiFi was wide open and VPNs played an important role in keeping you secure. These days connections are encrypted end-to-end and any attempt to waylay these connections is detectable.

Needing to get a foreign IP address is, of course, one reason for paying for a VPN - as is file sharing.

What an ISP can get is the IP address of the remote server you connect to, and usually a meaningful hostname - they can't see any URLs or any data. IMO that's small beer  compare with other private information we routinely give away. If you care only about that, and don't care about privacy in general, then maybe you should get a VPN. 

Vitor said:

I was staying at a hotel recently where the iPad gave me a warning that encrypted DNS was being blocked on their WiFi. Suspicious indeed.

That's not very suspicious. Malicious intent is a long way down on the list of probable causes - it's a lot of work, with little chance of success, and a high risk of detection. The most likely explanation is that they failed to open an appropriate port or broke HTTPS. Obviously you shouldn't use WiFi that breaks HTTPS.

Jumblebumble

bob2302 said:

Grandad99 said:

bob2302 Why?

Originally, public WiFi was wide open and VPNs played an important role in keeping you secure. These days connections are encrypted end-to-end and any attempt to waylay these connections is detectable.

I can happily disagree with you
I know of a very large city firm 30,000 + users that mandates that all users who have company laptops are always  to connect to the company VPN in any public Wifi location
I very much doubt they are doing this for giggles
As the VPN will need 2fa this protects the users against some jackass putting in a bogus Wi-Fi unit with a sniffer  that activates man in the middle.

bob2302

Jumblebumble said:

bob2302 said:

Grandad99 said:

bob2302 Why?

Originally, public WiFi was wide open and VPNs played an important role in keeping you secure. These days connections are encrypted end-to-end and any attempt to waylay these connections is detectable.

I can happily disagree with you
I know of a very large city firm 30,000 + users that mandates that all users who have company laptops are always  to connect to the company VPN in any public Wifi location
I very much doubt they are doing this for giggles
As the VPN will need 2fa this protects the users against some jackass putting in a bogus Wi-Fi unit with a sniffer  that activates man in the middle.

Corporate VPNs are a different matter. They provide access to the company's intranet and, commonly, force all internet traffic through proxy servers allowing the company to control access to external sites and read all encrypted traffic. 

As I already said MITM attacks on TLS are detectable. If they weren't they would work on VPNs too. The main risk of MITM attacks comes from someone clicking on an insecure link with a domain name that verifies correctly. If the login page looks convincing people often type in their details, including 2FA. This is, I think, the main reason why passkeys are being pushed - 2FA turned out to be a chocolate teapot.

Vitor

It's decent of Microsoft to offer a free 5GB/month VPN built into Edge browser for when you're working at a coffee shop etc. - Try Microsoft Edge's VPN Browser | Microsoft Edge

M25

Jails are full of people who thought a VPN would save them.

I use a VPN sometimes to get around geo-blocking but I certainly wouldn't trust it to really hide something even if it's not dodgy. Most VPN suppliers would sell your data for 10p too.

Also, isn't it "unsecure"? Insecure is to do with psychology or mental health.

Maybe some people's computers really are insecure with what people look at 

Vitor

The Tor network is certainly not secure for whistleblowers, journalists etc. to use

booneruk

Frozen_up_north said:

bob2302 said:

Most people don't need VPNs anymore anyway. 

So most people are happy that their ISP records every web site they visit and stores it for any council, ambulance service, customs and uncle Tom Cobley to view? 

Could. They could do that, only really by sniffing your DNS lookups (since HTTPS traffic is encrypted)

Do you really think this is happening though? I wonder how much data storage are they committing to this.

The only use case for a VPN (for a general internet user) is either using public wifi or trying to spoof your location. It might also give tin foil hat types more peace at night I guess.

Frozen_up_north

booneruk said:

Do you really think this is happening though? I wonder how much data storage are they committing to this.

Storage is relatively cheap and ISPs have a requirement under RIPA to have the means of recording individual customer connections to the web on request, and storing that data for 12 months.

Whether they continuously record “everyone” is a bit vague as to a requirement. In the various Government documents there is mention of voluntary recording.

Sicard

bob2302 said:

Most people don't need VPNs anymore anyway. 

You do if you want to watch UK tv but live abroad.