Comment by agnokapathetic
3 years ago
A lot of the people making purchasing decisions to acquire products like Tailscale are in security departments and have a very low opinion of Mullvad (VPN of choice for all kinds of abusive/fraud/hacking traffic).
>>> and have a very low opinion of Mullvad
We do?
I have a high opinion of them, one of the few VPN services I would trust not to give in even to governmental pressure. I firmly believe they would shut down their service before the compromised user privacy. That is very commendable
Are you a CISO or otherwise have that purchasing power? I’ve found that CISO types hold opinions that are not usually met by ground floor or even middle management folks.
i agree. meanwhile people are using vpns they saw advertised on youtube
Why would this affect the security of someone adopting Tailscale? It's not like partnering with Mullvad makes it easier for hackers/fraudsters/etc to attack a Tailscale user. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I would assume that 'hackers/fraudsters trust it' probably means that they do a decent job of respecting privacy?
What is the VPN service you think people (people on HN, say, not YouTube) have a high opinion of?
Mozilla is rebadged Mullvad. Proton might be ok. Everything else (Nord, Avast, Express, ...) is YouTube sponsor trash, Mullvad's the gold standard afaik.
Cloudflare Warp, WindScribe, and iVPN are decent. But given the ubiquity of DoH and the roll out of HTTP3/QUIC + Encrypted Client Hello, no VPN might serve just fine, too.
>(VPN of choice for all kinds of abusive/fraud/hacking traffic).
This is a pretty bad take. With your logic anything pro-privacy like Signal/Matrix etc would also be "x of choice for abuse/fraud/hacking etc" and thus shouldn't be used.
A VPN that can block activity X by definition is monitoring you to decide whether you're doing activity X.
Surely any solution worth using is going to be doing that on the client side in a way that's independently verifiable.