Jump to content
Not connected, Your IP: 216.73.216.190
AirVPN

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. mmm123456 mmm123456 joined the community ...
  3. Mylo Blaze Mylo Blaze joined the community ...
  4. morteneh morteneh joined the community ...
  5. notrealdnk notrealdnk joined the community ...
  6. rowdyalmond rowdyalmond joined the community ...
  7. antecedentary antecedentary joined the community ...
  8. Ladnek Ladnek joined the community ...
  9. rubengeorgia rubengeorgia joined the community ...
  10. Livingston1337 Livingston1337 joined the community ...
  11. Tottaa0 Tottaa0 joined the community ...
  12. The Harvest Clinic The Harvest Clinic changed their profile photo ...
  13. Today
  14. Wine Coolers Online Wine Coolers Online changed their profile photo ...
  15. VenusStaffing VenusStaffing changed their profile photo ...
  16. Cleva Getaways Cleva Getaways changed their profile photo ...
  17. Tech Jedi Alex
    First of all, open your own thread.
  18. Dje_
    Thanks a lot
  19.    Dje_ reacted to a post in a topic: Eddie Desktop - APT Repository Signing Key Update ...
  20. Staff
    Hello! The "range" is specified by mask /32, so it's this single unique address. Yes, it's plausible that some past event flagged the IP address. We don't know the internals of Tailscale but definitely this behavior should be investigated. Why an attempted connection to this specific IP address and why this port? Kind regards
  21. Zack
    According to the link in my first post, the entire range is flagged at Malwarebytes due to some adresses has been related to troians at one point. But nice to know nothing listens on that port, makes little sense to me
  22.    Zack reacted to a post in a topic: Malwarebytes blocks ip 213.152.187.210 ...
  23. Staff
    Hello! There's nothing listening to port 54037 on any AirVPN server. We can't see why Tailscale seeks a connection to it, anyway we are sure now that there's no malware there as there's nothing. Probably Malwarebytes behavior comes from some past event or it's yet another over-blocking case. Kind regards
  24. Wolf666
    Hello Staff, thank you for heads up! I will revert to MTU 1420. Regards
  25.    Wolf666 reacted to a post in a topic: Reason for Decreased MTU from 1420 to 1320 ...
  26. Staff
    the effective MTU of the tunnel is limited by the smallest MTU anywhere along the path Hello! On our servers the MTU limit is 1420 bytes on a standard Ethernet frame because of IPv6 over IPv4. For PPPoE see also https://www.hitoha.moe/wireguard-mtu-over-pppoe/ So, if you set 1432 bytes MTU for your WireGuard interface, the fragmentation will occur on our servers, not on your side. The upper, actual limit is the lowest MTU in the path, in other words the smallest MTU on the path silently limits the tunnel. The 12 bytes difference may be negligible and most packets will not be fragmented, and you will not see fragmentation on your side, but you could notice a performance hit on upload (upload from you to the server we mean). Kind regards
  27. Zack
    The program is tailscale and the port is 54037 in this case 🙂 I do have an Netherlands AirVpn server setup as an tailscale exit node, but this pc does not use any exit nodes.
  28.    Zack reacted to a post in a topic: Malwarebytes blocks ip 213.152.187.210 ...
  29. Telos
    Choose a different server? Not the answer. Using the Atlanta Georgia Wireguard config, I'm blocked on https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2026/02/03/badnas/ https://forums.spacerex.co/top Moving to the Miami Wireguard config, I'm blocked on https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2026/02/03/badnas/ DNS Leak test IP: 193.37.252.99 looks fine. FWIW, I'm using a web FoxyProxy on Firefox for these connections. There must be a better way than whac-a-mole. Advice?
  30. Jstatt
    The download links are all there now, problem solved!
  31. Wolf666
    Hello, just to share my experience, I am on PPPoE, MTU 1492 since my ISP doesn't support baby jumbo frames. I have 4 WG tunnels managed by my pfSense appliance. WG interfaces have MTU 1432 (only ipv4 traffic) and I don't see any fragmentation when I ping test from those WG interface. I had in the past MTU 1412 but recently I wanted to test exactly the MTU before fragmatation accurs and that value is 1432.
  32.    Wolf666 reacted to a post in a topic: UK VPN age verification ...
  33.    Reso reacted to a post in a topic: UK VPN age verification ...
  34.    Beau reacted to a post in a topic: Eddie Desktop - APT Repository Signing Key Update ...
  35.    D31TO reacted to a post in a topic: UK VPN age verification ...
  36.    ARPANET+ reacted to a post in a topic: Rapidgator IP listing ...
  37. Staff
    Hello! Problem solved, can you please try again now? Kind regards
  38. Staff
    @Zack Hello! The IP address you mention is assigned to AirVPN server Asellus in the Netherlands. Please mention explicitly port Y, we want and must verify what your app (mention the app too if possible) will find on that port, it's important. Kind regards
  39. Staff
    Hello and thank you for having reported the problem! We are working on it. We will update this thread when the issue is solved. Kind regards
  40.    sniffuncapped reacted to a post in a topic: No download links for Eddie gui ...
  41. guest34875
    Thanks for updating the Key.
  42. fishbasketballaries
    I'm seeing the same issue. For now you can still download from Eddie's own website. I know it looks kind of sketchy but this is a real website by AirVPN and is linked to in the FAQ. https://eddie.website/
  43. eyeman started following No download links for Eddie gui ...
  44. Jstatt
    Hi all. I'm setting up my computer with linux mint and trying to get the Eddie GUI but there's no download link on the website. And before you think this is just a linux issue I tested the page on my phone and on a windows and got the same result. Here's a screenshot of what the page looks like, it's actually doing this for the windows and mac options as well. I tested this with all my extensions disabled as well as trying the page on my phone using the Duckduckgo browser and on a windows laptop using Opera, same result. Anyone know why this is happening?
  45. Yesterday
  46. Claus Chimney Pros Claus Chimney Pros changed their profile photo ...
  47. SOS Restoration inc SOS Restoration inc changed their profile photo ...
  48. Zack
    Hello Sometimes I get message from malwarebytes that app X has tried to connect to ip 213.152.187.210 on port Y The only info I can find about about this IP is that it seems to be on the same range as the AirVPN servers in Netherlands uses and that this IP is blocked due to its related to an trojan: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/detections/213-152-187-210 Anyone here has more info about this?
  49. eyeman
    Hello, very late to the party but I'm trying to get Eddie downloaded onto my mac running MacOS Mojavey. When I go to the link https://airvpn.org/macos/eddie/ I don't see any versions listed. I've tried on multiple computers and i just see this. When I tried downloading through the eddie website, I got the same error as the original poster.
  50. airxirtir
    Thanks a lot for the quick fix and the clear instructions! I removed my temporary Sequoia policy workaround, re-imported the updated maintainer key as posted, and apt update is working again on Debian Trixie. Much appreciated.
  51. airxirtir
    Thanks a lot for the quick fix and the clear instructions! I removed my temporary Sequoia policy workaround, re-imported the updated maintainer key as posted, and apt update is working again on Debian Trixie. Much appreciated.
  52. Staff
    Hello! Please see here: https://airvpn.org/forums/topic/79065-eddie-desktop-apt-repository-signing-key-update/ Kind regards
  53. Instant Salesforce Inc. Instant Salesforce Inc. changed their profile photo ...
  54. Quicky82
    Thanks for the clarification @Staff!
  55. Staff
    Hello! Starting from February 1st, 2026, Debian (e.g. Trixie) enforces stricter OpenPGP policies and no longer accepts repository signatures involving SHA1-based certifications. As a result, users may see errors such as: Get:4 http://eddie.website/repository/apt stable InRelease [3,954 B] Err:4 http://eddie.website/repository/apt stable InRelease Sub-process /usr/bin/sqv returned an error code (1), error message is: Signing key on C181AC89FA667E317F423998513EFC94400D7698 is not bound: No binding signature at time 2025-01-14T13:07:46Z because: Policy rejected non-revocation signature (PositiveCertification) requiring second pre-image resistance because: SHA1 is not considered secure since 2026-02-01T00:00:00Z Warning: OpenPGP signature verification failed: http://eddie.website/repository/apt stable InRelease: Sub-process /usr/bin/sqv returned an error code (1), error message is: Signing key on C181AC89FA667E317F423998513EFC94400D7698 is not bound: No binding signature at time 2025-01-14T13:07:46Z because: Policy rejected non-revocation signature (PositiveCertification) requiring second pre-image resistance because: SHA1 is not considered secure since 2026-02-01T00:00:00Z Error: The repository 'http://eddie.website/repository/apt stable InRelease' is not signed. Notice: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default. Notice: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details. This was caused by an outdated signing key certification used by the repository. Solution The repository signing key has been regenerated and the repository is now correctly signed again. To restore updates, please re-import the updated maintainer key: curl -fsSL https://eddie.website/repository/keys/eddie_maintainer_gpg.key | sudo tee /usr/share/keyrings/eddie.website-keyring.asc > /dev/null Then run: sudo apt update Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for your patience. Kind regards
  56. Staff
    Hello! Interesting thread indeed, thank you. Our position is close to the EFF position you can read here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online We will keep you informed. So far, you probably know well our approach with similar, lower or higher requests from Russia, China and a few other countries, and there's no plan at the moment to change our position. In general, we think that it is impossible that those persons who advance, propose or defend such dangerous laws in so called democracies are in good faith (except in peculiar cases where they suffer from some mental illness or carry a neurological deficit). They have an hidden agenda developed on the myth of pervasive control but more importantly fueled by monetary reward. Yes, that's a motivational reason, maybe almost as strong as monetary reward and votes. Moreover, there is a real possibility that such laws lead on the short run to an increase in support (and therefore votes) which, net of dissent, is positive, even though by tiny tenths of percentage which are anyway not negligible for an embarrassingly inept ruling class that's incapable of developing serious strategies to improve the life of teenagers and children. Their total failure is proven by the official data (England and Whales police records in this case) that show a dramatic rise of sexual offenses against children in the UK in the last 5 years in spite of (and someone could even argue because of) more and more laws allegedly thought to protect children. Where does this 0.1% come from? If you want to stay real please adjust this quota (since 2025, start multiplying that percentage by 250 to begin with). Furthermore, there's no money involved to use Tor, its usage is totally free and well beyond Ofcom abilities to control it. However, it's true that people may find it boring because it's like 10 times slower than a VPN with a decent infrastructure. It would indeed. However, we seriously doubt that the ramshackle British institutions, always short of funds, can surpass the GFW designers and maintainers in efficiency, competence and grandeur of operation. And note that the GFW is routinely bypassed nowadays by the most and least skilled to connect to a wide range of VPNs. Our aggregate data show that this claim is deeply incorrect, at least for AirVPN, if we consider p2p improper usage quantified by DMCA and other warnings. It's not the majority, on the contrary it is a tiny minority. Where does this assumption come from? We would like to assess official stats to compare them with what we gather on the field. Kind regards
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...