Privacy

2333 readers

191 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

Be civil and no prejudice
Don't promote big-tech software
No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
No reposting of news that was already posted
No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 6 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If you use Mullvad, do you use the "Quantum-resistant" option in official client? (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've always had it on, but it's kind of a pain in the ass. Especially on worse (not necessarily slower) networks.

On laptop it's fine for the most part since the use-case is a bit different, but on a phone it's causing me some annoyances/issues.

With my carrier indoors it takes on average 62 seconds to connect. This is pretty annoying if toggling/switching VPN servers more often.
But when travelling (e.g.: in a train) it can make the difference from slightly spotty signal to almost never being connected successfully, impacting usability.

As such, I often find myself not even using VPN in such cases in the first place.
For comparison, plain Wireguard is done before I can pull away my finger from the "connect" button, usually even on 2G EDGE.

Do you keep this (perhaps a bit paranoid-level) option on?
Even if actually useful in the future, it would only protect traffic recorded from User to VPN anyway.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I notice the same effects as well. On desktop I keep it on because it doesn't take any longer and provides extra secutity, so why not. But on my phone over lte it doesn't work at all, so I keep it off.

There are only a handfull of quantum computers that could actually brute force a good vpn, and I highly doubt any of them would waste time/resources on spying on me playing steam games or browsing lemmy. In my opinion it's more of a future-proofing feature, and is less important to have on, in 2025 at least.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It isn't useful protection currently as quantum computers haven't done any factoring above 21

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

That shouldn't happen. All quantum resistant does is to switch out RSA for ML-KEM. The data transmitted is slightly more, around a KB vs a couple bytes, but that only happens once. The algorithm itself is actually faster.

So something else is going on here. I suspect it has to do with the MTU of your carrier, because the handshake will most likely not fit into a single packet, and then maybe something goes wrong with the related ICMP.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

If you don't need to use a VPN, eg. while on the move, why use one in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Personally i mostly use a VPN/tor for browsing the web, because i do not trust my ISP. There is also heavy censorship in my country, so i need to anyway. (For example, feddit.org/blahaj are blocked for... some reason. So it's way harder to browse lemmy without one of them.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

for when you don't trust your monopolistic ISP, and when you want to take advantage of the filtering setup at home

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I'm fully fine with a selfhosted VPN, and use that myself. But commercial VPNs are not the solution to anything.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It still helps with localization on websites so that I get better results (for me).

But also, my ISP's IPs have such awesome reputation that in certain places I get less Captchas on Mullvad. For example on Google in incognito or reset browser.

Plus it still helps privacy-wise. ISP doesn't know what I connect to, destination doesn't know my (ISP's) IP.

The only thing I don't use VPN for is, ironically, torrents. The only stuff I torrent is legal, and it's faster this way.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just use a search with easy language/localization setting then, you shouldn't use google anyway, not only for privacy but also as a matter of principle. Also, funneling all traffic through a VPN just shifts the tracking to them, so they still know which account number visits what and when. While in public WiFis, mobile networks etc. It's probably better to not use a VPN, as to spread traces over multiple seperate services. Or use multiple VPNs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'll trust Mullvad over literally any ISP and/or Government. If I wasn't willing to go even that far with trust, I'd buy half a dozen and chain them at semi-random halfhourly shifts of chains, filter over TOR between the last two and without a doubt whoever those 5 are, Mullvad would be my link to the shuffling chain from wherever I'm at.

Also, I don't need a reason to not trust anyone to not trust anyone.