If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Insecure VPN
This might be of interest to people using VPN:
https://vpnpro.com/blog/hidden-vpn-o...-23-companies/ There's a PDF download there, with an embedded image of charts from their research into who owns VPN services. It turns out many are Chinese. It wasn't easy to find this. Several sites had stories with indirect links to vpnpro**. So I just went to vpnpro.com and looked around. They don't explain it at their site, but do offer the download. I selected the image in the PDF, copied into Paint Shop Pro, and ended up with actual, readable data. ** I've never seen this before. Links at slashdot and computerweekly (which, as usual, didn't actually have the story but were only reporting that there was a story) were going to proofpoint.com, along with encoded ID data, rather than going to vpnpro.com. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Insecure VPN
Frank Slootweg wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: [...] I think Hola, for their free service tier, stole bandwidth from those hosts with their client to help speed up via parallelization of routing their premium (paid) customers. The freeloaders didn't know they were supporting the paying users. You mean *stupid*/*lazy*/whatever 'freeloaders', who couldn't be bothered to read what they agreed to. No, I mean freeloaders that were NEVER INFORMED about the VPN provider stealing some of their bandwidth by using the VPN client in a botnet to provide mesh networking to the paying customers (who somehow got higher bandwidth than the freeloaders). When Hola appeared and for a long time, they never divulged their bandwidth stealing scheme. Then when they got caught, they euphemized the "feature" by applying anal grease in calling it a community bandwidth sharing plan. More incorrect bias. They are already quite clear on (for example) their Google Play page and their homepage. Both of these point to their FAQ, which is very clear and specific for those who can be bothered to read. How long have you been Hola? Not long, for sure. They amended their ways but only after getting caught. I'm not talking about how they now document their free tier. I'm talking about what they did. Burglary is still theft but not so AFTER telling the customer of your home cleanup service that you'll "acquire" some of their goods on your visits. Bottom line: No "obfuscate", nor "stealing". Bottom line: YES THEY DID until caught. https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/29/8...sers-bandwidth 'Nice' piece of sensational journalism! :-( I hope people actually read beyond the - no doubt intentionally - misleading headline. Denying history is only viable to those who write it and hope others don't investigate. Hola .. they do not have their own network. Their network is their botnet of clients. WeChat: no privacy. WhatsApp: privacy, but ads are coming. Upons further reading, Google's push of RCS is also geared towards ad content delivery: they'll let advertizers use all those nice features to push content at users. Just keeps getting worse and worse. "There's a cost to "free""! :-) That's why the GDPR is forcing these providers to declare the cost, which is just another extension of ever increasing open disclosure (which meant overt disclosure, not buried where difficult to find or doesn't even exist). The VPNs thought/think they're excluded. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Insecure VPN
VanguardLH wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote: VanguardLH wrote: [...] I think Hola, for their free service tier, stole bandwidth from those hosts with their client to help speed up via parallelization of routing their premium (paid) customers. The freeloaders didn't know they were supporting the paying users. You mean *stupid*/*lazy*/whatever 'freeloaders', who couldn't be bothered to read what they agreed to. No, I mean freeloaders that were NEVER INFORMED about the VPN provider stealing some of their bandwidth by using the VPN client in a botnet to provide mesh networking to the paying customers (who somehow got higher bandwidth than the freeloaders). When Hola appeared and for a long time, they never divulged their bandwidth stealing scheme. Then when they got caught, they euphemized the "feature" by applying anal grease in calling it a community bandwidth sharing plan. More incorrect bias. They are already quite clear on (for example) their Google Play page and their homepage. Both of these point to their FAQ, which is very clear and specific for those who can be bothered to read. How long have you been Hola? Not long, for sure. I just checked: At least three and a half years. IMO rather a long time ago to still complain about it. No wonder your (TheVerge) reference was from even longer ago. (OTOH, I'm still whining about Google's broken-by-design Android update mechanism, so who am I to criticize others on these kind of things! :-)) They amended their ways but only after getting caught. I'm not talking about how they now document their free tier. I'm talking about what they did. Burglary is still theft but not so AFTER telling the customer of your home cleanup service that you'll "acquire" some of their goods on your visits. Bottom line: No "obfuscate", nor "stealing". Bottom line: YES THEY DID until caught. https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/29/8...sers-bandwidth 'Nice' piece of sensational journalism! :-( I hope people actually read beyond the - no doubt intentionally - misleading headline. Denying history is only viable to those who write it and hope others don't investigate. I read the headline ("Popular Chrome extension Hola sold users' bandwidth for botnets") as an accusation that Hola sold users' bandwith for the botnet that was used in the DoS attacks. I.e. that it was Hola's *intent* that its network was used for DoS attacks. "Toyota sold vehicle to run down pedestrian.". Anyway it's lots of water under the bridge. Hola .. they do not have their own network. Their network is their botnet of clients. I know. You snipped the context, which was: Those "free" services still cost them money for all those resources, so you are the commodity being sold to recompense them for their costs. In using their service, you become their saleable product. Which implied the Hola network "cost them money for all those resources", but in Hola's case, the network does not "cost them money", at least not for "all those resources". WeChat: no privacy. WhatsApp: privacy, but ads are coming. Upons further reading, Google's push of RCS is also geared towards ad content delivery: they'll let advertizers use all those nice features to push content at users. Just keeps getting worse and worse. "There's a cost to "free""! :-) That's why the GDPR is forcing these providers to declare the cost, which is just another extension of ever increasing open disclosure (which meant overt disclosure, not buried where difficult to find or doesn't even exist). The VPNs thought/think they're excluded. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Insecure VPN
Frank Slootweg wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Those "free" services still cost them money for all those resources, so you are the commodity being sold to recompense them for their costs. In using their service, you become their saleable product. Which implied the Hola network "cost them money for all those resources", but in Hola's case, the network does not "cost them money", at least not for "all those resources". Although Hola was mentioned earlier, that was a generalized statement and not solely against just Hola. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|