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 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
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 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.