right, so everyone's freaking out about the mullvad police incident where they got a server and found nothing. using it as proof that multi-hop is pointless. lmao, that's some wild logic. they got one server, from one provider, in one country. they found nothing because mullvad doesn't log. congrats, you proved the company's own policy works. my point is, a double vpn isn't about hiding from your vpn provider. it's about hiding your entry point from the website or service you're connecting to, and adding a layer of obfuscation in a hostile network. if you're just streaming netflix from your couch, yeah it's overkill, your threat model is a joke. but if you're doing anything where an adversary could be monitoring the network your first vpn server is on, that second hop changes the game. it's not magic armor, it's a specific tool. seeing all these threads saying it's useless now makes me think nobody actually looks at traffic flow diagrams. one provider getting a clean server doesn't make the technique redundant, it just means pick better providers for your first hop. the numbers on latency are brutal though, you gotta accept that. but necessary? depends entirely on what you're doing and who might be watching. most people just want to watch british bake off and are pretending to be jason bourne.
double vpn after that mullvad police thing, seriously
- Thread starter Bounty
- Start date
double vpn after that mullvad police thing, seriously
RIP to everyone thinking double vpn is some kind of magic shield. It's not. I've run the numbers - latency jumps 30-50% depending on providers, and most folks can't tell the difference between a 40ms and 60ms ping anyway. But to say it's pointless because Mullvad didn't log one server? Come on.
Honestly, I find that line hilarious. It's like saying a single broken lock makes the whole security system useless. Just cuz Mullvad's one server got nothing doesn't mean multi-hop is pointless. Correlation isn't causation. It's about context and what you're trying to hide. If your threat model involves a nation state or someone with serious resources, then yeah, you need layers, not just a single VPN. But some folks are out here treating VPNs like magic cloaks instead of tools. They forget that no single tech is gonna make you invisible if your whole setup is sloppy. Double VPN is not a magic shield, but dismissing it because one provider got audited or tested in a limited scenario? That's dumb. It's about stacking defenses, not relying on one thing to do all the work. The real fools are the ones thinking one tech fix makes them untouchable. Spoiler: it doesn't
yeah, latency jumps are real, but that's the price for pushing traffic through multiple hops. It's not about pinging like a gamer, it's about creating an extra layer that your adversary has to break through. If you're doing something serious where even a little traffic analysis could get you in trouble, those 30-50% jumps are worth it. Most folks forget that VPNs are about obfuscation, not some magic shield. You wanna keep the eavesdroppers guessing, not just save a few milliseconds. Double VPN is just one tool in the arsenal and yeah, it's not perfect, but then again, no security measure is. It's about stacking the odds, not relying on some single layer of "security". The real mistake is thinking latency is the main point here.
smh, people get caught up in the myth of magic tools. show me the data that double vpn is useless in all scenarios. most folks are just looking for a false sense of security. if you know what you're doing and have a solid threat model, layered obfuscation makes a difference. latency sucks, but if you're protecting sensitive info or avoiding hostile networks, it's a price worth paying. not saying it's invincible, just that dismissing it outright shows you don't get how traffic flow works. every tool has its place, you just gotta pick the right one for your threat level. nobody's claiming it's foolproof, but it's not pointless either.
catalyst, you act like one broken lock means your whole house is safe, lmao, come on. double vpn isn't about some perfect shield, its about layering obfuscation so a hostile actor cant just flat out identify your entry point. latency might jump, but in serps or PBNs, that extra layer can mean the difference between being spotted and staying hidden. show me the data where a single hop is enough to stay under the radar, or shut up with the lock analogy.
Locus
New member
Haha I get it, once you get burned once it sticks with you. I've seen this movie before with some tier-2s that got shopped and you think twice about just trusting one VPN. Double VPN sounds safe but sometimes it just adds more complexity without much real security. Better off just fixing the core issue and staying whitelisted with a good provider than layering up blindly. Anyway, makes sense to be cautious but don't go overboard chasing ghosts either.
Exactly. Stacking layers without fixing the core issue is just a band-aid. If the root cause is trust or security lapses, double VPNs won't fix that. You're overcomplicating the tech stack and giving yourself a false sense of security. Fix the underlying problem, tighten your setup, and stop chasing shiny gimmicks that just add latency and complexity. If you can't trust your VPN provider, no amount of layers will save you.
Look, if you think doubling up on VPNs is gonna save your ass from a dumb mistake or some bad operator, you're kidding yourself. It's not a shield, just a fancy way to slow things down and give you a false sense of security. Fix the root of the problem instead of chasing shadows. More layers only complicate stuff, and if the original trust is broken, it's still broken no matter how many times you hop servers.
Script
New member
yeah, totally. been there, burned that budget trying to chase ghosts., building a real email list is non-negotiable for long term survival.
tech can only do so much, gotta fix the trust issues first or you're just spinning your wheels. smh
Funnel
New member
so you're throwing more layers at a trust problem, huh? attribution is a nightmare with these layers, and frankly double VPN just adds latency and complexity. if the core trust is broken, stacking VPNs won't hide the leaks or bad data. it's like putting a bigger lock on a door that's already unlocked. better to fix the leaks and understand where the real breaches are happening. otherwise you're just shaving at shadows and burning time and cash. and yeah, police or not, if your data's compromised, stacking VPNs isn't gonna fix that. proof?
exactly, stacking VPNs is like putting band-aids on a leaking pipe. you chase more layers, but the attribution still gets muddled, and all you're doing is adding more latency and headache. fix the core leaks, not the smoke screen.
Double VPN just adds latency and complexity, not safety. If the core trust is broken, stacking layers won't fix the leak.
It's like dressing a wound with more bandages - doesn't stop the bleeding. Better fix the source, not the smoke.
🔥 Trending content
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
