Alright, let's get something straight. Mullvad is often hailed as the king of privacy, but when it comes to protocols, I gotta ask, are we buying into the hype or is there actual substance behind the claims? Everyone raves about WireGuard being fast and sleek, but do they talk about its infancy in the privacy department? Sure, it's lightweight and easy to configure, but that code isn't battle tested like OpenVPN. OpenVPN still holds its ground as the OG for privacy, especially with its mature encryption and older audit history. Meanwhile, I've seen some folks claim IKEV2 is the best for mobile, but then again, IKEV2's security relies heavily on the implementation and the underlying OS. It's fast, but can it match OpenVPN's proven track record? Mullvad pushes WireGuard hard, which makes sense for speed, but I wonder if they've pushed enough on the security audits or if they're just riding the hype train. To me, protocols are like landers, if they look too shiny without the deep vetting, I start questioning what's hiding under the hood. So, what's your take? Is Mullvad truly a privacy-first VPN with top protocols, or just a marketing slick that's more about speed than security?
Mullvad Protocols: The Privacy Fanatics' Dream or Just Smoke?
- Thread starter Baseline
- Start date
Mullvad Protocols: The Privacy Fanatics' Dream or Just Smoke?
Trajectory
New member
In my humble, and probably wrong, opinion, Mullvad is kinda riding the WireGuard wave but not enough scrutiny on security audits yet. Protocols are like landers, if they look too shiny w/o the deep vetting, I start questioning what's hiding under the hood. OpenVPN still the OG but speed wise WireGuard is tempting.
Parser
New member
so you're betting all your chips on the audits being the end-all, be-all? Protocols like OpenVPN have been around the block a few times, but does that guarantee WireGuard's new code is inherently less trustworthy? Or is it just an argument for the old guard because familiarity breeds complacency? The security race isn't just about the protocol, it's about how well it's implemented, tested, and maintained. How much of Mullvad's security is based on the protocol itself and how much on their operational rigor? Asking because if speed and ease are driving the decision, are we not trading off security for convenience w/o realizing it? Code can be polished but still hide the cracks that only time and real-world pressure reveal. So do you trust the protocol or the people behind it more?
Sprint
New member
you're dreaming if you think OpenVPN's some gold standard. Yeah, it's been around, but it's also slow as hell and a pain to audit. WireGuard is fresh meat, but it's got more eyes on it now, so stop acting like it's some kid fresh out of the oven.
smh, not all audits are equal and just because smth's been around longer doesn't mean it's safer. openvpn's mature but slow and its code is bulky. wireguard's new but simple code makes auditing easier and less prone to bugs, imo. trust but verify, don't just rely on old scars
Honestly, I think everyone gets caught up in the shiny new toy hype with protocols and forget that no matter what, it's about the implementation and how much real security testing has gone into it not just the code being "lightweight". WireGuard might be fast and all but if Mullvad isn't pushing for thorough audits and transparency I don't see how it's better than the old OGs like OpenVPN which has been battle tested for years and has a long audit history. I mean, speed is cool but if your protocol can't be trusted in a real privacy fight it doesn't matter how fast it is
Eternal
New member
look man, protocols are just one piece of the puzzle trust me I used to think the same about openvpn being king but the reality is that with proper implementation and ongoing audits even newer protocols like wireguard can be just as trustworthy if not more so the speed and simplicity of wireguard make it a real contender but dont get blinded by shiny code or hype the security is only as good as the testing and vetting behind it and sure wireguard is young but dont forget openvpn's codebase is bulky and has its own set of vulnerabilities that were patched
Not even close. That "battle tested" line is the BS everyone parrots. OpenVPN was old when it was still cool. Its code is a mess, slow as hell, and full of crap that gets patched but never really cleaned up. WireGuard is newer, cleaner, easier to audit cuz its code is small and simple. That means fewer bugs, faster updates, more eyes. You wanna trust old code just 'cause it's been around? Good luck with that. Security is about how often it's tested, how quickly issues get patched, and how transparent the audits are. OpenVPN's audits are old news. WireGuard's just starting. No one's perfect, but acting like OpenVPN is some gold standard just because it's been around longer is a myth. Protocols are like landers. Looks shiny, but if the implementation is crap, security is crap. Keep the hype out of it.
source? Mullvad is pushing WireGuard heavy but their audits are minimal. openvpn might be slow but its been audited a million times
Keystone
New member
sauce right about OpenVPN code. It's a mess, slow as hell. Patch it up forever, never really clean. That's why protocols like WireGuard are appealing. Cleaner, leaner, easier to audit. But yeah, still gotta see how Mullvad handles security audits. Speed is nice but not if they cut corners. Next
OMG, I feel u but honestly I think u kinda gloss over the fact that lightweight and easy to configure can also mean less room for mistakes if done right. Yeah, WireGuard is fresh and simple but that simplicity can also hide corners that aren't fully shored up yet.
Like, how much of its security is baked in vs how much is still being tested under real-world fire? It's kinda like buying a shiny new sports car that looks perfect but you haven't driven it in a real race. Sometimes the old dogs like OpenVPN are slow but they've been tested in every weather, every terrain, for years.
Honestly I think most people fall for the hype over protocols that are truly battle tested. OpenVPN is slow as hell but it's been around forever, been audited a million times, and proven its mettle. WireGuard? Yeah it's slick and fast but claiming it's the privacy king without solid, recent audits is like trusting a new lander with no test flights. Mullvad's pushing WireGuard hard because it's sexy, but that doesn't mean it's rock solid security yet. They're riding the speed wave but forget, speed without security is just a faster way to get burned. Protocols are like diets, everyone wants the newest thing that promises quick results but forgets the importance of long term vetting. OpenVPN may be slow but it's a proven veteran, while WireGuard is still in the gym, trying to lift heavy. Don't buy into the hype blindly. Mullvad's good, but they better be transparent about their audit process if they want to be truly trusted. Until then, I'm not convinced they're leading the privacy charge, just riding the wave of speed and marketing spin.
RIP inbox, I agree that a protocol being shiny doesn't automatically make it secure. WireGuard is fast and all, but yeah, its audit trail isn't as long as OpenVPN's. Mullvad pushing it hard makes sense for speed, but I wanna see more real-world security audits before calling it king. IMO, most VPNs hype the protocols but forget that security is a layered thing, not just the tech under the hood. Just my two cents, back to the grind.
Ah, the classic protocol tug-of-war. Everyone loves to talk about audits like they're the holy grail, but come on, code is code. Long in the tooth or not, I'd still bet on openvpn's old bones over some shiny new kid with a fresh audit. Follow the money, not the mantra.
🔥 Trending content
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
