Privacy

32120 readers

396 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why Your VPN May Not Be As Secure As It Claims (krebsonsecurity.com)

submitted 6 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Virtual private networking (VPN) companies market their services as a way to prevent anyone from snooping on your Internet usage. But new research suggests this is a dangerous assumption when connecting to a VPN via an untrusted network, because attackers on the same network could force a target’s traffic off of the protection provided by their VPN without triggering any alerts to the user.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying it could not happen, but when you use VPN, the local network equipment does not determine protocols, the VPN infrastructure and it's configuration in the device do. Any local connection, including the internet gateway, just serve as the road for those packets to go out or come in.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please let me know, I'm not 100% certain this is the case, but it is my understanding of how VPNs work.

[–] noride@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You aren't wrong, per se, I think you just don't fully grasp the attack vector. This is related to DHCP option 121, which allows routes to be fed to the client when issuing the ip address required for VPN connectivity. Using this option, they can send you a preferred default route as part of the DHCP response that causes the client to route traffic out of the tunnel without them knowing.

E. It would likely only be select traffic routing out of the tunnel. I could, for example, send you routes so that all traffic destined for Chase Bank ip addresses comes back to me instead of traversing the tunnel. Much harder to detect.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Oh crap! That's concerning as hell. I'm going to try that in my PFSense and test it with ProtonVPN, Tailscale, Wireguard to my UnRaid and NordVPN. See if maybe any of them have a way of hardening that, or at least completely dropping the packages if not.

If no VPN can be hardened for this, is there a chance that Tor or I2P can be used to avoid it instead?

Thank you very much for such a wakeup call.