I've used proton for a year or two now and it is fine. Great for use on my phone when I want to use public/airport wifi and it sort of kind of works with gluetun (the rotating port is annoying but it still is a forwarded port).

But I've increasingly been annoyed with Proton as a company and am looking to migrate my email/domain to fastmail in the very near future. I COULD continue to just pay for the vpn (60 USD a year is pretty reasonable) but also feel like this is a good opportunity to "shop around"

Checked the wiki and other FAQs (which all basically crib from said wiki) and they all basically boil down to proton or mullivad... except that mullivad apparently stopped allowing port forwarding which is a bit of an issue for any torrents and the like.

So are there any other good options?

Thanks

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

This is a decontextualized post from 2015 that theorizes a DDoS attack on Proton at the time was coercion to "help" them by offering to proxy their traffic through Bynet in Israel for the purpose of tampering. Is there any other info out there to support this theory? It's intriguing and believable but also complete hearsay absent any other corroboration, context, further info, etc.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I don't trust proton. if you think you can trust proton, feel free to use them.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That didn't answer the question. You made an assertion, but haven't provided any evidence to support that claim.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I did provide evidence. you're asking for more evidence.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No, you provided a conspiracy theory that fit your explicit biases. If you had bothered to actually read the link you provided, you would know they didn't provide any evidence to support their claim that Israel is hacking Proton.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

the claim isn't that Israel is hacking proton. the claim is that proton routed traffic through an IDF affiliate.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Now the "Switzerland" based privacy firm is proxied by an Israeli firm for traffic analysis, network exploitation of users, cryptographic monkeying

It literally claims that the traffic was routed expressly for the purpose. You didn't read the article.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I read it when it was published and stashed it for opportunities like this.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Then you didn't read it very good, if you not only missed the fact the article was alleging Proton was hacked by Israel, as well as believe it provides proof of that claim when it does not.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

the post is mostly verifiable information with two sentences of speculation that you seem to think is the crux of what I said, when, in fact, all I said is that routing traffic through Israel dimishes my trust in proton.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So your position is that they did something you didn't like a decade ago, and so that makes them untrustworthy now?

At least you've admitted that your argument is nothing more than an opinion.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago

trustworthiness is always a matter of opinion.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I think you're picking up subtext in my comment that isn't actually there. If you don't have more info that's OK, I can do my own research.