Proton

5272 readers

106 users here now

Empowering you to choose a better internet where privacy is the default. Protect yourself online with Proton Mail, Proton VPN, Proton Calendar, Proton Drive. Proton Pass and SimpleLogin.

Proton Mail is the world's largest secure email provider. Swiss, end-to-end encrypted, private, and free.

Proton VPN is the world’s only open-source, publicly audited, unlimited and free VPN. Swiss-based, no-ads, and no-logs.

Proton Calendar is the world's first end-to-end encrypted calendar that allows you to keep your life private.

Proton Drive is a free end-to-end encrypted cloud storage that allows you to securely backup and share your files. It's open source, publicly audited, and Swiss-based.

Proton Pass Proton Pass is a free and open-source password manager which brings a higher level of security with rigorous end-to-end encryption of all data (including usernames, URLs, notes, and more) and email alias support.

SimpleLogin lets you send and receive emails anonymously via easily-generated unique email aliases.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ProtonPrivacy

alex_herrero

Nelizea

Wondering if using ProtonVPN in a VPN chain is an issue. (lemmy.today)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/protonprivacy

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Pretty much what the title says. I have a subscription to Proton as well as Mullvad. I've ordered a router and I plan on running Proton on the router and Mullvad on the device I'm using, or vice versa. I would just like to know with absolute certainty that doing this won't somehow put my Proton account at risk, before I actually do it; I rely on my Proton account for a lot of things. I know there are automated systems in place that detect abuse, especially with respect to DDoS and whatnot. I do not do anything related to DDoS or anything similar, so my account will never be flagged for anything of that nature correctly. I really can't see how/why daisy chaining with another VPN could reasonably be construed as an abuse of the service, but I actually do worry about that in all honesty, whether or not I should. If there's any way something like that might happen, I'll abandon the idea as it would concern my Proton account and figure some other means of accomplishing this. Thanks.

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What do you gain by doing this? I trust both proton and mullvad to not fuck up their encryption so attackers can't read your traffic even through one VPN. The second one doesn't offer additional security here.

In your setup, proton will only know you use mullvad but not know which sites you visit in the end. Mullvad knows everything just the same as without proton. So the outer VPN doesnt add privacy either.

If you are suspected of a crime, forcing mullvad to disclose your identity/IP is enough and proton doesn't help.

If you are worried about traffic correlation analysis, then yes 2 VPNs will help. But honestly for normal usage I don't see the point of 2 VPNs.

And about the DoS fear. Just do it the other way round? Mullvad on the router, proton on the device? From protons perspective you produce the same amount of traffic, it just comes from a mullvad server. The outer VPN is the one where you have increased traffic due to 2 VPNs. But I am pretty sure neither will be a problem and tunneling a VPN through a VPN is not a TOS violation

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If you are worried about traffic correlation analysis, then yes 2 VPNs will help.

I am trying to obfuscate my traffic fingerprint as much as possible, yes.

The outer VPN is the one where you have increased traffic due to 2 VPNs.

So, does it (roughly) just double the amount of traffic by adding the second one, or…?

Edit:

I'm not sure why I was downvoted. Advanced traffic analysis techniques already exist. I can only imagine that as soon as methods sufficient to fingerprint innocuous use of the clearnet at significant scale become feasible, that is exactly what will happen. I see nothing inherently irrational about having a threat model that makes some reasonable attempt to account for that.