Hacker News Reader

Comment by linkregister | Hacker News Reader

Then why complicate it by being publicly insecure? If Mullvad were wanting to defeat anonymity, they could simply log the traffic metadata while falsely advertising they aren't.

Their ads on San Francisco's public transit are good.

View on HN

Good VPNs tout the fact that they had nothing to give in response to a subpoena, or that there was nothing a law enforcement agency to find when they seized a server. For mullvad to be effective as a honey pot it needs to survive these events with its reputation in tact.

If it were a true honeypot by a state agency, they'd be able to just lie about having nothing too.

Not when people get arrested and the investigative techniques, sources, etc are made public. They would have to intervene in the legal process to make sure mullvad's role was kept secret. Presumably this isn't always feasible across jurisdictions.

Parallel construction

There's a real value for no such agency types having something that is secure against "normal" government activity - a subpoena is one thing, and designing something that defeats that gives you a lot of legitimacy.

"public insecure" JFC

Security is always a balance. Always

AI is showing that everything has a weak spot (wondering where are the "I don't make mistakes with C" now people are - but that's for another discussion)

There's another commenter mentioning this makes sense because exactly it avoids them keeping information on which customer is matched to which server. You know, one of the things you don't want to log

Could it be done better? Probably.

Here's a better idea, logging off is 100% safe

Meanwhile 99% of the normies will go for NordVPN

Reply on news.ycombinator.com