Consider Cyberghost #421

New Issue

2018-04-01T18:18:31Z

c0rdis commented

2018-04-01 18:18:31 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Looks like all the criteria from https://www.privacytools.io/#vpn are met.
https://www.cyberghostvpn.com

Looks like all the criteria from https://www.privacytools.io/#vpn are met. https://www.cyberghostvpn.com

👎 2

Hillside502 commented

2018-04-01 18:55:08 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

In the top right corner of https://www.cyberghostvpn.com it gives my location as Sweden and shows my IP address, then goes on to say "EXPOSED".

I don't think so --- I'm connected to a competing VPN and --- guess what --- I'm not in Sweden.
The only conclusion is --- wait for it --- Tossers!

In the top right corner of https://www.cyberghostvpn.com it gives my location as Sweden and shows my IP address, then goes on to say "EXPOSED". I don't think so --- I'm connected to a competing **VPN** and --- guess what --- I'm not in Sweden. The only conclusion is --- wait for it --- Tossers!

👎 1

c0rdis commented

2018-04-01 21:30:30 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

For the record - I'm not affiliated with them in any way, and I'm not even their customer. Yet the argument "they showed me I'm exposed on their main page when I used some other VPN, so this product sucks privacy-wise" doesn't sound valid to me.

Hillside502 commented

2018-04-02 11:28:01 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

So, when I'm connected via a VPN, am I "exposed" or not?

So, when I'm connected via a **VPN**, am I "exposed" or not?

Atavic commented

2018-04-02 19:41:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

You're exposed to the VPN Provider.

👍 1

ghost commented

2018-04-02 22:10:47 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

VPN providers' websites say you're exposed when they detect an IP that doesn't belong to them. They don't know that you're using a different VPN. If you want to see if/how exposed you are, ipleak.net.

👍 1

NeverDucky commented

2018-04-03 23:49:47 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

In the top right corner of https://www.cyberghostvpn.com it gives my location as Sweden and shows my IP address, then goes on to say "EXPOSED".
I don't think so --- I'm connected to a competing VPN and --- guess what --- I'm not in Sweden.

@Hillside502 to be fair other providers do that too, such as NordVPN which is currently on the list. It's just a rather presumptuous way of displaying that the user's current exit node does not belong to the provider.

> In the top right corner of https://www.cyberghostvpn.com it gives my location as Sweden and shows my IP address, then goes on to say "EXPOSED". I don't think so --- I'm connected to a competing VPN and --- guess what --- I'm not in Sweden. @Hillside502 to be fair other providers do that too, [such as NordVPN](https://nordvpn.com/) which is currently on the list. It's just a rather presumptuous way of displaying that the user's current exit node does not belong to the provider.

Hillside502 commented

2018-04-04 10:18:16 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

https://www.cyberghostvpn.com/
Your Status: EXPOSED

https://nordvpn.com/
Your Status: Unprotected

https://trust.zone/
YOUR PROTECTION IS POOR!

All other Privacy Tools recommended VPNs give no such misleading banners!

https://www.cyberghostvpn.com/ Your Status: EXPOSED https://nordvpn.com/ Your Status: Unprotected https://trust.zone/ YOUR PROTECTION IS POOR! All other Privacy Tools recommended VPNs give no such **misleading** banners!

ghost commented

2018-04-04 13:02:18 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

That's just marketing, and while it is misleading, it's not too bad when you know why such statuses are shown.

👍 1

c0rdis commented

2018-04-04 13:10:08 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

That's precisely my understanding of the issue.

Additional links to support the initial proposal:
EU-based: https://www.cyberghostvpn.com/en_US/about
Logging policy: https://support.cyberghostvpn.com/hc/en-us/articles/213898965-Does-CyberGhost-log-No-
OpenVPN support: https://support.cyberghostvpn.com/hc/en-us/articles/213983829-Which-native-protocols-do-you-support-
Bitcoin payments: https://blog.cyberghostvpn.com/en/pay-anonymously-with-bitcoins/

That's precisely my understanding of the issue. **Additional links to support the initial proposal:** EU-based: https://www.cyberghostvpn.com/en_US/about Logging policy: https://support.cyberghostvpn.com/hc/en-us/articles/213898965-Does-CyberGhost-log-No- OpenVPN support: https://support.cyberghostvpn.com/hc/en-us/articles/213983829-Which-native-protocols-do-you-support- Bitcoin payments: https://blog.cyberghostvpn.com/en/pay-anonymously-with-bitcoins/

Hillside502 commented

2018-04-04 13:43:32 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

That's just marketing, and while it is misleading, it's not too bad when you know why such statuses are shown.

So, we're going to give credence to "misleading" marketing?

> That's just marketing, and while it is misleading, it's not too bad when you know why such statuses are shown. So, we're going to give credence to "misleading" marketing?

NeverDucky commented

2018-04-04 14:09:51 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

We already do with NordVPN and trust.zone as you showed. Are you proposing a policy change? Currently such "misleading marketing" is not criteria for being listed on the site. For that matter, FrootVPN, hide.me, NordVPN, VPN.ht, and VPNTunnel are marked as "falsely claims 100% effective" on thatoneprivacysite.com. Should those be removed too?

We already do with NordVPN and trust.zone as you showed. Are you proposing a policy change? Currently such "misleading marketing" is not criteria for being listed on the site. For that matter, FrootVPN, hide.me, NordVPN, VPN.ht, and VPNTunnel are marked as "falsely claims 100% effective" on [thatoneprivacysite.com](https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison-chart/). Should those be removed too?

👍 1

ghost commented

2018-04-04 15:03:24 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

If we removed every single VPN that isn't perfect, we'd be left with an empty list. The technical side is way more important.

👍 1

NeverDucky commented

2018-04-04 17:25:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

There is a similar issue going on in #72 where there is hesitation to add a new VPN provider to the list due to a controversy despite the issue being present in VPN providers already on the list.
I agree with @CHEF-KOCH that it's important to let the reader decide on a VPN provider on their own, but I think the point of the list we maintain is to give the reader a good starting point. To that end I think either Cyberghost (and VPNArea from #72) should be added because they meet the criteria and the reader should be able to consider them as such, or we should re-evaluate the criteria and remove offending providers. This is to maintain integrity and accuracy, which simply not adding them because some may see it as "pointless in my opinion" fails to do.

There is a similar issue going on in #72 where there is hesitation to add a new VPN provider to the list due to a controversy despite the issue being present in VPN providers already on the list. I agree with @CHEF-KOCH that it's important to let the reader decide on a VPN provider on their own, but I think the point of the **list we maintain is to give the reader a good starting point**. To that end I think either Cyberghost (and VPNArea from #72) should be added because they meet the criteria and the reader should be able to consider them as such, or we should re-evaluate the criteria and remove offending providers. This is to maintain integrity and accuracy, which simply not adding them because some may see it as "pointless in my opinion" fails to do.

👍 1

NeverDucky commented

2018-04-04 17:27:53 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I also agree with @Shifterovich when they say

If we removed every single VPN that isn't perfect, we'd be left with an empty list. The technical side is way more important.

So I think we should add both VPN providers and if we happen to later come to the decision to change the criteria, remove them at that point.

I also agree with @Shifterovich when they say > If we removed every single VPN that isn't perfect, we'd be left with an empty list. The technical side is way more important. So I think we should add both VPN providers and if we happen to later come to the decision to change the criteria, remove them at that point.

NeverDucky commented

2018-04-04 19:48:44 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

It's also worth noting that below the VPN providers list there is a second set of criteria that is different than the first:

Operating outside the USA or other Five Eyes countries.
More: Avoid all US and UK based services.
OpenVPN software support.
Accepts Bitcoin, cash, debit cards or cash cards as a payment method.
No personal information is required to create an account. Only username, password and Email.

At there very least there appears to be some inconsistency that should be addressed. Maybe we should open a new issue for this.

It's also worth noting that below the VPN providers list there is a second set of criteria that is different than the first: - Operating outside the USA or other Five Eyes countries. - More: Avoid all US and UK based services. - OpenVPN software support. - Accepts Bitcoin, cash, debit cards or cash cards as a payment method. - No personal information is required to create an account. Only username, password and Email. At there very least there appears to be some inconsistency that should be addressed. Maybe we should open a new issue for this.

g-monk commented

2018-04-08 04:00:16 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I as a beginning contributor and someone who has to study this, would say from a user stand point that regardless of what you add or don’t add. The pros and cons should be briefly explained. I posted here like a year or so ago, that I will be translating the website and making it more user friendly, however even at times I’m stumped on how to explain things. Now keep in mind that this is just to break down net privacy for beginners like me who are yet to learn of this stuff and are just stepping in the field.

👍 1

Atavic commented

2018-04-08 16:21:39 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

VPN services have their own criteria to meet on privacy tools site. Then there are issues with what they claim and what they do regarding their logs. Moreover, different laws apply to different countries and we should add a note about the NSA's foreign partnerships.

More info here and here

VPN services have their own criteria to meet on privacy tools site. Then there are issues with what they claim and what they do regarding their logs. Moreover, different laws apply to different countries and we should add a note about the NSA's foreign partnerships. More info [here](https://electrospaces.blogspot.it/2013/11/five-eyes-9-eyes-and-many-more.html) and [here](https://thebestvpn.com/5-9-14-eyes-countries/#safevpns)

blacklight447 commented

2019-08-09 20:38:50 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

we are currently not looking to add more VPN providers. this issue will be closed with the possibility of being opened again once we remove another VPN provider.

nitrohorse commented

2019-08-10 01:07:58 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

we are currently not looking to add more VPN providers. this issue will be closed with the possibility of being opened again once we remove another VPN provider.

We recently removed cryptostorm from the VPN providers list so maybe this is worth considering again if anyone is interested.

> we are currently not looking to add more VPN providers. this issue will be closed with the possibility of being opened again once we remove another VPN provider. We recently removed cryptostorm from the VPN providers list so maybe this is worth considering again if anyone is interested.

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.