Decentralized VPNs

There are some projects currently whose idea is to have a decentralized VPN, as in A pays B cryprocurrency so that A can use B's bandwidth and surf with their IP. There are currently three such projects, all with working prototypes (and as none of them have fully implemented their payment system, they are all free to use with test-tokens right now): Mysterium (Windows) : https://mysterium.network/ Sentinel (Windows, Linux, Max and Android): https://sentinel.co/ (Linux) Privatix: prihttps://privatix.io/ In my opinion the advantages are that there is no central company that could store and analyze your logs (they say they don't, but how can you be sure) and that it's probably much harder for netflix, etc. to block all nodes as they can come from anyone anywhere, so maybe it will be possible to watch netflix (and other geo-restricted content) more reliable than with current VPNs. As far as I test this works right now with some offered nodes. However, I am not sure if it is a security risk that you have you connection over someone else's computer, but all of the projects also plan to implement multi-routing, which would then turn it into some kind of incetivised TOR. What do you think from a /sec/ perspective, is this a good idea to use or better not?

Check out skywire

why would you use an "incentivized tor" when normal tor is already more than able to handle your traffic?

>>6621 Same reason anyone is using VPNs: Tor is often too slow, eg. for watching videos.

what's the point when you can use Tor instead? Tor is superior to VPN and costs 0$ >>6698 >Tor is often too slow, eg. for watching videos. that's a lie. you can easily watch high bitrate videos live with Tor and you should have been using youtube-dl anyway, it downloads videos to your PC, you can then watch it without caring about your connection speed.

>>6711 TOR is only good for https protocol soykaf, VPNs are good for all traffic so a decentralized VPN would have its benefits. That being said, people like to use onion routing for all sorts of protocols, so a quick search will yield plenty of results for whatever you're trying to do. Tribler, for example, is a bittorrent client that uses onion routing (not tor, they have their own network and I haven't looked into its size.) And, yes, onion routing is considerably slower -- the ability to stream high bitrate videos is really dependent on your network and that of your relay nodes. But, oh my god guys, you should be using VPNs in conjunction with TOR or ANY sort of routing. This is day one stuff. Set up your own servers if you don't trust your service.

>>6736 It's Tor not TOR. Opinion discarded. Go larp somewhere else.(Argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

>>6737 If you think onion routing replaces a vpn then you're an idiot.(Argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

>>6738 They should be used in conjunction with one another

>>6738 >If you think onion routing replaces a vpn then you're an idiot. No, I think *you* are an idiot for pretending to know anything about onion routing when you don't even know how to spell Tor. It means you've never even read a single blog post nevermind any of the code or specs and basically everything you know about it comes from other cluesless idiots who also think it's TOR. Re-reading your post I think I understand what you're getting at. Here's a clue for you >TOR is only good for https protocol soykaf, https is 3 layers too high https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model

>>6740 >https is 3 layers too high So are you talking about routing all traffic through the tor network? I was just thinking about the browser which is https, so I was kind of seeing network protocols interaction with lower levels of the osi model as fairly irrelevant. Building something to route ALL traffic through tor is a different story. But even then I would argue it's important to use tor in conjunction with a vpn, because I'd trust a vpns network a bit more than my isp. As for the name thing, I didn't get that from anything or anyone, I just thought it stood for "the onion router" from which it gets its name. Fine, I was wrong, I don't care.

>>6741 https is useless with onion sites, and in many cases will simply de-anonymize the admin. You already have an encrypted tunnel to the onion site that couldn't be MITM'd. http is more than good enough for that.

>>6736 >they have their own network and I haven't looked into its size. wouldn't a smaller network be unsecure ? why not just use the tor network ?

>>6741 >So are you talking about routing all traffic through the tor network? Tor works over tcp so anything else that works ontop of tcp also works over Tor. That's why network protocols are arranged in layers and why saying Tor is only good for https makes no sense. >TOR is only good for https protocol soykaf, VPNs are good for all traffic The difference between Tor and a vpn is around layers 2-4. Layer 7 (https) is so far removed it's not worth mentioning. We've established that literally the only thing you know about Tor is what the letters stand for and you don't really know what a vpn is or have even a basic understanding of how network protocols exist in layers so there's probably no point in doing this but >even then I would argue it's important to use tor in conjunction with a vpn, Why?

>>6755 >even then I would argue it's important to use tor in conjunction with a vpn, >Why? IIRC the reason is something akin to tracking TOR uptime via an ISP or so I have heard. I am not familiar enough with the technical aspects, but as it was explained, it has something to do with ISPs can detect that you are using TOR which somehow makes you noticeable) unless you route all internet traffic through a VPN and then access TOR

>>6758 Not even that guy, but stop saying fuarrrking "TOR". It's not an acronym. Secondly, stop trusting soykaf you read in youtube comments, you fuarrrk. ISPs can detect Tor, but PROTIP, VPNs are ISPs. Or at least, so functionally similar for the purposes of this conversation that the (otherwise significant) differences are irrelevant. VPN providers are commercial entities that do things like log traffic, keep records of financial transactions, etc. Oh, you'll hear about the odd one that doesn't, but the majority of them will, and even when they don't, they tend to not have the financial chops to fight off legal action from the federales anyway, so it becomes irrelevant. VPN providers are essentially just another hop you're providing metadata to (connection times, etc), and an unnecessary complication in an already mildly complex chain. Also, no, you can't pay for a VPN anonymously with bitcoin or whatever, so don't bother trying that retort. I'm sure you'll still try, but you're wrong.

>>6759 >It's not an acronym The Onion Router.

>>6760 https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WhyCalledTor

>>6760 Yeah, it used to be that acronym at the very beginning because the software uses a technique called onion routing, but when the Tor Project started they changed it to a proper noun. All official docs and manuals refer to itself as "Tor".

>>6761 wow thanks, I didn't know that. /s making a big deal over how people spell things is pretty stupid. In fact trying to "win" arguments by calling people stupid, is pretty stupid.

>>6763 >is proven wrong >being called wrong and stupid is terrible, you can't win an argument like that This isn't high school debate club. I'm not trying to win some philosophical debate about the death penalty. We are emphatically not equals. I am highlighting your lack of knowledge and attempting to remedy it, because it's an ungodly hour where I am and a little bit of public service cures boredom, and the internet is so full of cargo-cult security and half-baked notions that honestly, noblesse really does fuarrrking oblige, these days.

>>6764 >We are emphatically not equals. you don't even know who I am. I'm for sure not the guy you were "correcting". Respect people if you want them to respect you. Dithering about names and how smart you are is a #1 way to get on my jackass list.

>>6765 The problem with names is, as the Tor project themselves literally state in said little paragraph, the easiest way to identify an idiot who doesn't know soykaf is to find the one who still calls it TOR. The problem with the jackass list is that I don't want to be respected. I'm a pseudonymous asshole on the internet - the only thing I want is for people to not read and trust bullsoykaf.

>>6754 Yes. >>6759 >Stop saying fuarrrking "TOR" That's not me >>6759 You could argue that more people would be using tor on a vpn and that would obscure your usage, at least compared to the isp. Like I said, I trust a vpns network more than my isps in terms of logging, even if it's just a matter of trust. I still would say consistent use of tor is safer with a vpn. >>6755 >Tor works over tcp Yeah, no soykaf. When I was talking about https I was pretty much just talking about the browser, which is where we're getting confused. So I just want to know, because I'm an idiot: how would you go about routing other traffic through the tor network.

https://www.vpngate.net/en/ Works fine only in windows.

>>6763 >Respect people if you want them to respect you. If people don't want mean words to be posted about them, then the shouldn't dismiss the importance of an argument the moment they realize they're wrong. This behavior is extremely annoying. Notice how determining whether "TOR" was right or wrong was worth knowing only up until the uninformed realized they were wrong. Why do you defend people getting pissy the moment they realize they're wrong?

>>6767 You trust your VPN provider more than you ISP for logging. Ok. But if we speak about security... you better trust ISPs more than VPN networks. VPN providers are so bad at /sec/ it blow my mind.

>>6766 >The problem with the jackass list is that I don't want to be respected. then stop jacking off how smart you are

>>6767 You realise that the VPN industry is full of shady fuarrrks who pay people for good reviews, don't know soykaf about security, and will sell you out instantly, right? As far as routing other traffic through Tor, assuming you mean TCP traffic, if it supports SOCKS proxying, you can piss it through localhost:9050, and if not, on *nix you can use function hooking via LD_PRELOAD to force traffic to use Tor or similar (which is what torsocks does).

>>6772 Yeah, I've read plenty of articles about how it's impossible to rate vpns because, despite their claims, there's no way to know if they're logging your data. Of course MY vpn is different huehue No, but I seriously loathe american isps, so any piece of mind is nice. Besides, for things like seed boxes, there have to be thousands of peoplle using vpns for that. Anyway, having my own vpn (a decent one) would be a life long goal. As for torsocks, which I was not familiar with, I'm assuming that's for outgoing tcp requests? And that's gonna route "everything" through 9050? So I guess my next question is udp traffic and port forwarding. I've been able to host dedicated servers through my vpn, and as far as I'm aware the only way to do stuff like that with tor would be to have an address, and even then it would only be tcp (which is what I was talking about with https, which yeah was over simplified, but I am curious.) And I know a lot of bittorrent clients create UPnP exceptions and soykaf like that (which is a bit sketch, but manually forwarding every randomized port would be such a massive pain in the ass.) idk, that torsocks thing is exciting and I'm gonna start playing with it, but when it comes to forwarding and udp I still have a lot of questions I'm not immediately finding answers to. You start to see why I was hesitant to accept the idea that tor is a sufficient replacement for a vpn.

>>6770 You got good articles or specs? I totally believe you I just wanna know more

>>6781 I don't really care anymore as I just use a burner laptop for shady things. I just pop Tor on someone else network. But if you want to know how bad VPN providers are, check this out; (sorry for soykafty googlesheet); https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nm7mxfFvmdn-3Az-BtE5O0BIdbJiIAWUnkoAF_v_0ug/htmlview It was back when almost nobody in infosec was talking about WebRTC, lot of VPN were leaking IPs... VPN providers will log less than ISPs but leak way more to anybody

>>6782 Huh, some of those aren't the worst. >Burner laptop on someone else's network That's... one way to do it

>>6782 That webRTC test thing you've got is pretty handy.

>>6736 >TOR is only good for https protocol soykaf, VPNs are good for all traffic so a decentralized VPN would have its benefits. wrong. Tor is good for TCP protocol. only UDP doesn't work (except DNS requests). there is risk when using unencrypted TCP connection, that exit node could steal or modify data, but currently most TCP applications use end-to-end encryption (web browsers, mail clients, FTP clients, chat programs) >But, oh my god guys, you should be using VPNs in conjunction with TOR or ANY sort of routing. fu,ck off VPN sh,ill. we won't buy your sh,it services. VPN = snakeoil, honeypot instead of paying to VPN, send that money to Tor nodes or host your own nodes >This is day one stuff. Set up your own servers if you don't trust your service. what's the fuarrrking point of VPN if you are single user? you will be the only person connecting to it, it will be obvious all actions from this VPN are made by you >>6755 >We've established that literally the only thing you know about Tor is what the letters stand for and you don't really know what a vpn is or have even a basic understanding of how network protocols exist in layers so there's probably no point in doing this but he doesn't know sh,it about VPN or Tor, but he is paid to advertise VPNs so he is doing his job

>>6736 >TOR is only good for https protocol soykaf, No it's not. >Set up your own servers if you don't trust your service. Setting up your own VPN mises the point.

>>6782 >zorropn >Leaks: N/a >Note: $$ i think im glad i chose them?

>>6841 How I feel about pia

>>6782 yeah, but vpn providers being bad is exactly the reason why decentralized vpns make sense.

>>6758 Bridges. If your ISP wants to know you are using Tor they eventually will, but if they don't they won't.

>>6365 I have trouble trusting $free VPNs