• TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    Most VPNs sell themselves on encrypting your traffic to an endpoint that either is in a different locale to get around region locks or to put it out of the grasp of the RIAA so they can’t send your ISP copyright notices.

    While remote access to a local network is a good use case for a self-hosted VPN it’s totally unrelated to the use case for commercial VPNs

    • stephen01king
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      For the use case of encrypting your traffic while using a public WiFi, both commercial VPNs and self-hosted ones provide the same functionality.

      • OR3X@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think the point they’re getting at Is that you can’t use a self-hosted vpn to hide your piracy activity because the link is registered to yourself.

        • stephen01king
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, but this thread is about security while using public Wi-Fi, which the original comment was saying doesn’t require commercial VPNs.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            And I highly doubt people are pirating while on public wi-fi, the bandwidth just isn’t good enough, and even if it was, it would be a dick move to other public wi-fi users.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes that’s true. But also that’s the wink and nudge marketing claim that VPN marketers make while everyone knows the real reason you are using a VPN.

        With HTTPS, DNS-over-HTTPS, and most endpoint firewalls dropping non-gateway traffic, the risk is a lot less than the VPN ad reads want you to believe

        • stephen01king
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          DNS-over-HTTPS sounds like it’ll be the least used by general public since most people I know are still using default DNS settings which would point towards their ISP’s. I’m not sure how many ISPs have moved towards DNS-over-HTTPS or if they are even activated by default.

          • exu@feditown.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Firefox has DoT enabled by default, maybe Chrome does the same. That would cover the use-case of most people on public wifi.

            • stephen01king
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Wait, it’s set in the browser? I’ve always thought you set that at the OS level.

              • exu@feditown.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Both, the browsers (and any other application) can choose to ignore your DNS settings and use whatever other mechanisms they like.

                • stephen01king
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Cool, didn’t know that. I’ll try and find the setting in the browser.