Linux - SecurityThis forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
But last time I looked AES-256 was the strongest available to us non-military users. So what is it they're offering, illegal encryption? Or is it just misleading marketing and it's weaker than AES-256?
But last time I looked AES-256 was the strongest available to us non-military users. So what is it they're offering, illegal encryption? Or is it just misleading marketing and it's weaker than AES-256?
If it's a 2048-bit symmetric key, then yes, the key length is 8 times greater, resulting in an enormous boost to the key space (2^256 vs. 2^2048). I have a feeling they're referring to an asymmetric key, however – of course, I'm not sure. If that were indeed the case, though, keep in mind that a 2048-bit asymmetric key is about as strong as a 112-bit symmetric key according to NIST. Have you considered contacting proXPN to ask them for clarification with regards to what exactly they're offering? I glanced at their site but couldn't find any details.
But last time I looked AES-256 was the strongest available to us non-military users. So what is it they're offering, illegal encryption? Or is it just misleading marketing and it's weaker than AES-256?
I couldn't see the word 'military' anywhere on the page quoted; what they say is 'by creating a 2,048-bit encrypted connection...'. Perhaps as well, given Mr Schneier's comments in the links above (brilliant links, btw, people should be forced to read them).
There doesn't seem to be much of anything in their help centre; perhaps understandable if this is a very new start-up, otherwise a worrying sign.
So if we can't trust this vpn provider for offering what they say, then we can't trust them for keeping our communications private, or anonymoys. However, I have an idea:
What if you connect to the vpn, share the connection to another computer B in your lan (internet connection sharing), and then on computer B you set up a connection to another vpn from another provider, that you then share this connection (using internet connection sharing) to another computer C, and repeat? In other words:
a vpn inside a vpn inside a vpn ...
which is NOT vpn chaining.
Then an adversary would have to force ALL vpn providers involved to reveal decrypted data in order to break your privacy. And if just one vpn is in a hostile jurisdiction, the adversary gets stuck there.
So if we can't trust this vpn provider for offering what they say, then we can't trust them for keeping our communications private, or anonymoys. However, I have an idea:
What if you connect to the vpn, share the connection to another computer B in your lan (internet connection sharing), and then on computer B you set up a connection to another vpn from another provider, that you then share this connection (using internet connection sharing) to another computer C, and repeat? In other words:
a vpn inside a vpn inside a vpn ...
which is NOT vpn chaining.
Then an adversary would have to force ALL vpn providers involved to reveal decrypted data in order to break your privacy. And if just one vpn is in a hostile jurisdiction, the adversary gets stuck there.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.