InformAction Forums

I was wondering whether I should infer from seeing the presence of PureVPN advertisement on this website that the NoScript developer, and the rest of the team here at InformAction, would vouch for the integrity of the owners and team at that business? I mean, is the team at PureVPN actually personal or professional acquaintances to the extent that NoScript trusts in them with regard to privacy? In light of the excellent reputation of NoScript among security-minded folks, I would be quite interested in hearing their opinion about it. It would go a long way toward making me feel more comfortable about PureVPN because I do not know them, but I have a great deal of confidence in the NoScript team.With all due respect, I would like to think that this advertisement stands for more than merely a money making activity.

antipop wrote:I was wondering whether I should infer from seeing the presence of PureVPN advertisement on this website that the NoScript developer, and the rest of the team here at InformAction, would vouch for the integrity of the owners and team at that business?

Assuming that 'this site' refers to noscript.net (since there is no advertising on these forums), the answer is that Giorgio does vet the ads he puts there, although he does not necessarily have any personal/professional involvement with them.

And everyone else on the support team is simply a volunteer moderator, nothing more.

Hi, Thrawn.

Wow, that was a fast reply. As for your deduction about my reference to "this site", yes, good call, I was indeed implying the whole InformAction/NoScript group. Thanks for the clarity. I appreciate getting your opinion about it, too. I think it would be swell to hear directly from Giorgio so that we can have a sense of what his "vetting" implies. Since InformAction lives by this standard:

For ten years we have been committed to

software development
IT consulting
technical mentoring
internet security


I would like to hear his professional opinion about the intentions and best-practices of PureVPN in regard to protecting our security and privacy, if he could take the time to do so. I am sure that I am not alone in stating that his opinion would carry a lot of weight in this regard.

antipop wrote:I would like to hear his professional opinion about the intentions and best-practices of PureVPN in regard to protecting our security and privacy, if he could take the time to do so. I am sure that I am not alone in stating that his opinion would carry a lot of weight in this regard.

If you're after full-blown anonymity, then the TOR Browser is the way to go. It's not perfect either, and you must use it carefully, but it's the best you can get to that purpose.
On the other hand, the TOR network is painfully slow so it's not suitable for everyday use, especially if you consume multimedia content.

What I've found investigating them before we entered in partnership, is that PureVPN offers one of the best compromises between performance and consumer-grade privacy, i.e. encrypting all the traffic between you and them and getting a "random" IP, possibly in a different geographic zone in order to circumvent geo-based policies.
Also, their staff is technically competent and committed to users' privacy and security, as they demonstrated with their fast and effective response to the Hearthbleed crisis.

Giorgio, hello.

I do sincerely appreciate your taking time to bring light on this issue, and I am sure others feel the same. Using a VPN is an important decision.

grazie mille

http://www.ohmygodel.com/index.html#research

https://cpunks.org//pipermail/cypherpunks/

http://www.wired.com/2007/08/embassy-e-mail/

There was an interesting paper by a German researcher that decided that only using nodes within your geopolitical boundary , and i believe looping them, was more secure than hopping outside to use an international border jump. He used a node mapping app, and kept it around 5 to 7 hops, and allowed random looping and exit node to keep it anon.

That automatically allowed a USA citizen to be scraped, especially if it was encrypted, and kept forever.

Hello, morganism


> "...That automatically allowed a USA citizen to be scraped, especially if it was encrypted, and kept forever."

I don't understand what this means. Please explain it. Thanks.

I tried to use PureVPN as my VPN provider for a couple of months and I wasn't impressed. It kept on logging and nearly broke my Internet connection down, so I had to fix it. I had reformat everything. And then One Day, someone told me to use IronSocket, also a VPN provider. I 've been using IronSocket for months now and It's really cool. They guarantee zero log policy and works so well. It's simple but they are the bomb.

LoneFire wrote:I had reformat everything.

To change VPN providers?

The VPN provider recommended in LoneFire's post is a paid service. This thread is about whether Giorgio endorses PureVPN, not about which VPN provider is "best".
Commercial link removed and warning issued.

Does PureVPN have port forwarding enabled?
With PureVPN connected, you could use nmap to see what else is on the tunnel network. I read PureVPN Review [link deleted by moderator] but still wanted to make sure.

alifaizan wrote:Does PureVPN have port forwarding enabled?
With PureVPN connected, you could use nmap to see what else is on the tunnel network. I read PureVPN Review [link deleted by moderator] but still wanted to make sure.

alifaizan,

1) Asking support for PureVPN is off-topic to this thread. As already said, the topic here is whether Giorgio endorses PureVPN. Despite the thread title, the topic is not PureVPN in general.

2) This forum cannot support commercial products. We're all volunteers doing support for a couple of free softwares on our own time and dime.

3) You didn't actually read the link you posted, did you? Since if you did, you would know of at least two places that would happily take your question, wouldn't you? Those places are PureVPN's own support and the very site you linked. Go ask there.


Locking thread since the original question was resolved long ago.