> However, the worst case situation is that they lie about not tracking users and then they get hit with a LEO request they bow down to.
That's within reason though. A VPN is another ISP afterall, so they have to 'bow down' to law enforcement requests. What LEAs can get depends on how zero knowledge the VPN setup is. OVPN[0] for example has been 'court tested' and Mullvad had nothing to give to authorities[1] since they don't collect it in the first place (apart from payment metadata).
I'm not affiliated with OVPN or Mullvad, just a happy paying customer.
A VPN is not an ISP, at least as Canadian law (currently) is concerned. ISPs are required to store IP assignment logs, VPNs are not. Additionally, VPNs (in Canada) cannot be compelled to log users.
Source: Our law firm (I'm from Windscribe), and first hand experience with RCMP.
It's only "reasonable" if the subpoena comes from a court in the country the VPN is headquartered in. And just like you said, what LE can get depends on how the VPN is setup. If it's no-logs, anonymous payment, randomly generated user ID's, and servers not allowing dumping of the connections, there isn't much to give to the law at all.
This is good! I will use this as a reference to share with friends and colleagues who ask me about XYZ VPN.
I think something that is missing in the network of connections is Mozilla VPN. From what I understand, they are just a re-brand of Mullvad.
There are other providers not listed, but finding a good VPN provider is kind of like finding a good watering hole--you don't want to spread the word too widely, else bad-actors come and pollute it.
I didn't realize how many media companies own VPN companies.
I'm the author of the map and I'll get those updates on there now, the Mozilla node was actually hidden (as I need to update the corp info) and there's other corrections I'm making now.
If you have any other suggestions I'm more than happy to look into them and start getting them updated. This has been a passion project of my own for the past few years so I'm really grateful for any other feedback.
Since you are the author of the map, it would be nice to also include the Windscribe relationship with Rescloud, which is one of their current residential ips providers whose CEO was cofounder of WeVPN.
An update to the 2022 VPN affiliate relationship map. A handy reference for who is owned by who - including their status or whether they're actually part of a bigger corporation.
Used to be a customer of ExpressVPN but after the acquisition, it no longer worked properly in China. Mullvad somehow survives despite their server IP ranges being public
Contrary to popular belief, IP blocking isn't the most common way VPNs are blocked these days. Additionally, GFW isn't the same in all of China. Different networks, different cities, have different filtering policies and rule sets. Same as in Russia now.
The GFW is extremely sophisticated in what it blocks and how it blocks it. I have seen it block otherwise random traffic based on packet sizes, packet patterns, stream concurrency, stream duration. It will allow connections, then probe the remote endpoint and disconnect if the probe detects banned services. It will track relationships between endpoints (e.g. blocking one resulting in traffic to another). Traffic that looks off /looks off/ and the GFW will block it -- and looking off may not be the kind of encryption or protocol, but simply how many people are using it from where and for how long.
The toughest part about working around the GFW is its consistency. Its effectiveness can vary by hour, day, political wind, etc. It can vary by what network you are on or the route your traffic takes to leave the country. The GFW isn't perfect, but it is just good enough that you give up trying.
And then every once in a while you get a news report about some VPN user getting arrested, so you get that level of paranoia, too.
I used to find it worked here and there for me (Shanghai Telecom, 4/5G was OK. Home didn't work). Shadowsocks worked well for me but then got janky - ended up using a local VPN for gaming and Windscribe for general browsing. For 3 sweet months I could run a AWS node and relay through that with awesome speeds but then that broke too. Ended up just with a residential IP and that solved everything til I left.
There is of course times like when the Two Sessions are in order and nothing worked.
I’m currently connecting directly to the Singapore server via WireGuard. Not even from the app, just from network manager on Linux. I do have xray and Trojan set up just in case
While the no-logs policies of many of these providers is mentioned in their EULAs, there's never a mention of paid access to NetFlow data, which can be used to link public flows to the IP addresses of users.
Is this a thing? I recall hearing about it around two years ago.
Something along the lines of "ISPs Give 'Netflow Data' To Third Parties, Who Sell It Without User Awareness Or Consent" [0] or "How Data Brokers Sell Access to the Backbone of the Internet" [1]
Very interesting! I'm curious why there is there is a typical relationship between vpn companies and media companies, by common subsidiary ownership or otherwise. I don't really follow the logic here, is it just because the media company can promote their partnered vpn? Or is there some other reason?
It is /exactly/ because the media company can promote its partnered VPN. A huge driver of user signups in the commodity personal VPN space is affiliate referrals, and usually those affiliate sites are "review" or "how-to" sites. While the affiliate relationship is usually stated, it implies that the site makes money off the referral. In a lot of cases, the site actually makes its money by preferred placement of the VPN provider on their site. A VPN company often even writes or edits the content for the site.
If you're a VPN company, it's actually cheaper for you to own the sites and populate them with your own product than it is to pay a site for placement, especially if you own four or five VPN brands. Heck, sometimes, they don't even acquire sites. They just start them and spend money to get them to rank well.
I don't trust review sites in general (even if they don't contain paid recommendations, they still rank by which affiliate will net them more money), but I /really/ don't trust sites that cover or rank VPN providers. Personal VPNs as they are pitched to consumers are just shy of snake-oil, and almost all the content written that touts them is revenue driven.
Background: I previously helped start and worked for a VPN provider.
Affiliate campaigns! So basically you'll see in review articles for everything a link with a ton of fluff and tracking in it.
Say you want a new pair of headphones. You'll probably do something like this.
1. Search Google & look for forum/reddit threads talking about specific brands.
2. Look for those brands for further reviews, feedback, and price comparisons.
3. You will come across a review that has links to the "best price".
4. By clicking that link if you purchase that product then, or within 15-30 days (depends on the affiliate agreement) the affiliate will earn commission.
That's why big corps work with media companies. They make hundreds of thousands per month via affiliate commissions alone.
This induces a large amount of biases as media sites always recommend their affiliates over non-affiliates.
This is a major reason why I don't do affiliate links outside of Amazon for anything I mention (I add tracking links sometimes if a company sponsors a video and requests I use one of their tracked URLs, but I won't do affiliate links for any entity I work with). It creates perverse incentives, especially if one of the services generates a lot of revenue for a channel/publication.
If there's a relationship with a vendor—especially in articles that review and compare different services—it should be obvious what that relationship is. Online tech publications and review websites are some of the worst offenders these days.
VPNmentor, a VPN review site, was acquired by Kape "Technologies" for 150M.
PrivateInternetAccess, a major VPN service was acquired by the same company for 95M.
A VPN review site is worth more than most VPN services it promotes due to insane $CPA they pay to these types of sites, that masquerade as "security exports" while in reality ran by marketing people.
there isn't that much technical differentiation. If you have a hundred companies selling the same commoditized service the only way for you to make any money is through some sort of brand or customer acquisition. On a pure product case VPN providers have essentially competed each other to the cost of production.
I'm surprised that no one has said anything about the fact that this is put out by a VPN company!
I also could not find their name on the map. It doesn't mean that it's not there, I just couldn't find them. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The only thing I find a VPN useful for is torrenting w/o your ISP knowing. In my case, I use Surfshark for torrenting so that Comcast can't send me any of those pesky letters.
Windscribe is on the map with one connected node: their DNS service Control D. I know it seems a bit hypocritical and untrustworthy since it is written by a VPN company, but Windscribe is generally regarded as trustworthy, privacy oriented, and not deceiving customers for money [0]. Companies such as Windscribe, Mullvad, IVPN, and Proton are better in almost all cases than something like Surfshark because they minimize the risk of your personal info falling into the wrong hands. Unlike those proprietary companies that will turn over your full browsing history in a heartbeat when in court, companies like Windscribe will have nothing to turn over in the first place. I use Windscribe all the time personally because even if sites profile me, I dislike the fact that they can know the city in which I love just from connecting to the site, so there are a few other benefits.
> I also could not find their name on the map. It doesn't mean that it's not there, I just couldn't find them. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
They're there, in the top-right next to Mullvad, as they're also self-funded. Seemingly connected to "Control D" as it's a DNS service with focus on privacy built by them.
Also, from their "Ethics" page:
> Windscribe is entirely self funded. We don't have any VC's breathing down our necks and telling us what to do.
Thanks for pointing that out! It turns out that the latest update to qBittorrent started binding to all available adapters. I just set it to only use my VPN's adapter and all seems to be fine now. Thanks again!
Also, does anyone know of a privacy conscious VPN provider that currently supports port forwarding? One of the only provider's I know of right now is ovpn.com and I cannot vouch for their privacy practices.
Readit News
That's within reason though. A VPN is another ISP afterall, so they have to 'bow down' to law enforcement requests. What LEAs can get depends on how zero knowledge the VPN setup is. OVPN[0] for example has been 'court tested' and Mullvad had nothing to give to authorities[1] since they don't collect it in the first place (apart from payment metadata).
I'm not affiliated with OVPN or Mullvad, just a happy paying customer.
[0] https://www.ovpn.com/en/blog/ovpn-wins-court-order
[1] https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subjec...
Source: Our law firm (I'm from Windscribe), and first hand experience with RCMP.
Dead Comment
https://alternativeto.net/news/2023/5/ovpn-acquired-by-pango...
Article updated 2023 https://blog.windscribe.com/the-vpn-relationship-map-2023/
I think something that is missing in the network of connections is Mozilla VPN. From what I understand, they are just a re-brand of Mullvad.
There are other providers not listed, but finding a good VPN provider is kind of like finding a good watering hole--you don't want to spread the word too widely, else bad-actors come and pollute it.
I didn't realize how many media companies own VPN companies.
If you have any other suggestions I'm more than happy to look into them and start getting them updated. This has been a passion project of my own for the past few years so I'm really grateful for any other feedback.
The reference article for the map itself with key updates & findings: https://blog.windscribe.com/the-vpn-relationship-map-2023/
The GFW is extremely sophisticated in what it blocks and how it blocks it. I have seen it block otherwise random traffic based on packet sizes, packet patterns, stream concurrency, stream duration. It will allow connections, then probe the remote endpoint and disconnect if the probe detects banned services. It will track relationships between endpoints (e.g. blocking one resulting in traffic to another). Traffic that looks off /looks off/ and the GFW will block it -- and looking off may not be the kind of encryption or protocol, but simply how many people are using it from where and for how long.
The toughest part about working around the GFW is its consistency. Its effectiveness can vary by hour, day, political wind, etc. It can vary by what network you are on or the route your traffic takes to leave the country. The GFW isn't perfect, but it is just good enough that you give up trying.
And then every once in a while you get a news report about some VPN user getting arrested, so you get that level of paranoia, too.
There is of course times like when the Two Sessions are in order and nothing worked.
~1-2 years ago: yes Currently: I don't know.
I worked for a web company and we were getting reports that our websites looked wrong/bad/messed up from within China.
So we needed an IP within China to confirm.
1st attempt: SOCKS proxy = worked, and confirmed that GFW or something was screwing up our content. (simple SSH tunnel)
2nd attempt: Wireguard = could not establish a connection to wireguard server hosted on same ISP/co-lo in China as the socks proxy.
3rd attempt: Windows RDS = worked
We ended up using RDS as that was easier for our testers to use. (despite the training I offered)
It doesn’t. At least on few tests I did
Is this a thing? I recall hearing about it around two years ago.
Something along the lines of "ISPs Give 'Netflow Data' To Third Parties, Who Sell It Without User Awareness Or Consent" [0] or "How Data Brokers Sell Access to the Backbone of the Internet" [1]
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/pbdvp3/isps_give_n...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg84yy/data-brokers-netflow-...
If you're a VPN company, it's actually cheaper for you to own the sites and populate them with your own product than it is to pay a site for placement, especially if you own four or five VPN brands. Heck, sometimes, they don't even acquire sites. They just start them and spend money to get them to rank well.
I don't trust review sites in general (even if they don't contain paid recommendations, they still rank by which affiliate will net them more money), but I /really/ don't trust sites that cover or rank VPN providers. Personal VPNs as they are pitched to consumers are just shy of snake-oil, and almost all the content written that touts them is revenue driven.
Background: I previously helped start and worked for a VPN provider.
Say you want a new pair of headphones. You'll probably do something like this.
1. Search Google & look for forum/reddit threads talking about specific brands.
2. Look for those brands for further reviews, feedback, and price comparisons.
3. You will come across a review that has links to the "best price".
4. By clicking that link if you purchase that product then, or within 15-30 days (depends on the affiliate agreement) the affiliate will earn commission.
That's why big corps work with media companies. They make hundreds of thousands per month via affiliate commissions alone.
This induces a large amount of biases as media sites always recommend their affiliates over non-affiliates.
If there's a relationship with a vendor—especially in articles that review and compare different services—it should be obvious what that relationship is. Online tech publications and review websites are some of the worst offenders these days.
PrivateInternetAccess, a major VPN service was acquired by the same company for 95M.
A VPN review site is worth more than most VPN services it promotes due to insane $CPA they pay to these types of sites, that masquerade as "security exports" while in reality ran by marketing people.
Look at their staff: https://www.vpnmentor.com/about-us/
Every "favorite" VPN is a property they own, except for the sole NordVPN guy.
I also could not find their name on the map. It doesn't mean that it's not there, I just couldn't find them. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The only thing I find a VPN useful for is torrenting w/o your ISP knowing. In my case, I use Surfshark for torrenting so that Comcast can't send me any of those pesky letters.
[0] https://windscribe.com/ethics (audits and other general sources over YouTube and privacy forums confirm this)
They're there, in the top-right next to Mullvad, as they're also self-funded. Seemingly connected to "Control D" as it's a DNS service with focus on privacy built by them.
Also, from their "Ethics" page:
> Windscribe is entirely self funded. We don't have any VC's breathing down our necks and telling us what to do.
https://windscribe.com/ethics
I'd be more concerned about everyone else: https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/qBittorrent/comments/14bzdct/psa_qb...
Deleted Comment
There's 100% a difference between a billion dollar corporate owner vs indies. As well as the amount of spend that goes into affiliate marketing.
Also, does anyone know of a privacy conscious VPN provider that currently supports port forwarding? One of the only provider's I know of right now is ovpn.com and I cannot vouch for their privacy practices.