this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
426 points (96.9% liked)
Privacy
5334 readers
171 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, it's basically what Tor does, just with extra hops. So the vulnerability is still the same, but you're trading off higher cost/lower speed for mitigating the risk somewhat.
Many Tor applications, and many VPNs (including Mullvad) do this "noise packets"/size hiding encryption thing. That's good, but not unique.
That's kind of what I meant. Implementing both of those things together on a VPN is unique AFAIK.
I would imagine if you could trust the entry node that would also mitigate a significant amount of risk, no? I'm not deeply knowledgeable on the subject just FYI
Ah, I see, yeah I'm not aware of others doing both at once. I do think it's a decent security model.
And yep, the big deal is controlling entry+exit gateways. Trusting those will always be the fundamental risk point in VPNs.