My Review [0/10]

[konstigaord 0]

 

Conclusion: AirVPN is a bunch of BIG A-holes.

 

And I will never recomend them to anyone EVER, and I will tear you to pieces on my blog.

[go558a83nk 362]

oh, this ought to be good.

[zhang888 1066]

Outbound DDoS attacks, where caused intentionally or not, will cause permanent suspension on any provider,

even on the one you mentioned. Hopefully you won't lose those "lifetime $300" again, since if it will happen, you will.

[Staff 9973]

Hello,

 

we're very patient when our systems are attacked, but patience is not a synonym of stupidity. The redacted ticket history is quite self-explaining, as well as the language you have used.

 

Here it's just worth mentioning that if you attack an Air VPN server from another Air VPN server you will face consequences. Your behavior can also be configured as a criminal infringement in most, if not all, European Union countries. Even if you come from a country where such attacks are not covered in the legal framework, you must anyway comply to the Terms of Service you accepted. If you don't, face the consequences and go elsewhere.

 

We have moved this thread in "Off Topic" because we find that it does not find place in any other forum of ours. Please note that your message is also recorded in case of any criminal prosecution against you from any action initiated by us or any other attacked entity, since you have been so dumb to make your potentially criminal infringements partially public.

 

EDIT: we confirm that customers traffic is not logged and that there are no traffic limits. However, if a VPN server is attacked, it's the VPN server itself that takes countermeasures and can of course log IP addresses of the attacker(s). This case is quite unique since an Air VPN server has been attacked by your system through another AirVPN server.

 

Kind regards

[Revelead 16]

Have fun with your shady VPN you dickhead. If you abuse AirVPN, then dont cry that it gets deleted. Your fault.

[Guest]

I read through all of that and I must say I'm unable to find words, good for AirVPN to take a stand when they were attacked since they have no obligation to do anything for you after an attack has been seen coming through your account as it happened which doesn't require logs to see btw.

 

Also please don't come back we'd like to enjoy our quality service in peace thank you.

[mehāniskākaravīrs935 24]

Good, we don't need any more people attacking internet infrastructure just so some fucker can stroke their hacker ego. In a semi-unrelated note, its very clever that the system was able to fend of the attack on its own (supposedly) may i ask if its possible this kind of ip logging and defense mechanisms may initiate itself by accident? For example if i downloaded hundreds of gigabytes at a time (files, games, video etc.)  over a short period of time due to high speeds could that make the system log my ip under the misconception that it is under attack?

[skull88 2]

Duh, any provider will suspend your account if your system attacks their servers, genius

 

And we're glad they do, I think most people here prefer not to pay for slow speeds and disconnects because a few idiots constantly attack the servers.

 

But at least you showed you love to gamble to take a lifetime subscription with cryptocloud cryptostorm

[Staff 9973]

Good, we don't need any more people attacking internet infrastructure just so some fucker can stroke their hacker ego. In a semi-unrelated note, its very clever that the system was able to fend of the attack on its own (supposedly) may i ask if its possible this kind of ip logging and defense mechanisms may initiate itself by accident? For example if i downloaded hundreds of gigabytes at a time (files, games, video etc.)  over a short period of time due to high speeds could that make the system log my ip under the misconception that it is under attack?

 

Hello,

 

no, there is no such logging at all.

 

The case is different when an attack is brought against an Air server. When an Air server is attacked, the attacking IP address(es) may be logged to defend the server (although it could be perfectly useless in case the IP addresses are spoofed), this is quite ordinary and has nothing to do with traffic logging, customers IP logging etc., which is not performed as usual.

 

In the exceptional case in which an Air server is attacked by a customer connected to an Air server  (either the same server or a different server), then of course we have a very unexpected option to locate easily the attacking source and mitigate or solve the attack. The investigation starts because an Air server is attacked, not for some other reason. It's physically impossible that the activities you describe can configure an attack to an Air server (VPN server, web server...).

 

You can imagine the surprise to see that someone attacks the very same infrastructure he/she is connected to. Apparently it makes no sense, so it is possible that the attacking system is infected (as we said to the attacker) or this behavior has been followed only to fabricate a case, who knows.

 

Kind regards

[Evono 6]

So to sum up

 

He had a infected pc ( Or not ) 

 

he cleaned it ( or not )

 

Air vpn wanted to Unbann ( even while they dont need to ! ) the acc, yet his fail behavior and that he said that he wont use the service anyway anymore

 

he bought an 300 ! 300 dollar acc on a shady driven vpn ? 

 

Now he tries to make air vpn look bad ? 

 

hell they even wanted to Reopen his acc. but his Butthurt behavior failed him.

 

 

Air vpn good way to handle that really.

 

iam not long with you but iam confident with the service.

[cm0s 118]

i'm just here for the pup treats

[OmniNegro 155]

Good observation. I suspect it may have been him intentionally attacking under the very false impression that AirVPN would willingly facilitate his attack.

 

The only hard evidence I have to support this is that he claims to have had no knowledge of the "compromised" system, yet he must have to suggest that there is a traffic limit.

 

Kudos to you @cm0s.

[kiwi 16]

in brief: konstigaord --> 0/10 points

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

Pay attention on the internet now. Set up AirVPN (review/bad/dickhead/a-hole/asshole/someotherword) as a buzzword in Google or search regularly. When you see a blog with a very bad AirVPN review sounding like it's this user's story, post it here.

 

He is not a programmer, so he might have registered his blog on wordpress.com or Blogger.

[victorab 12]

I don't know what to think about this story.

This guy (or the computer's guy) launched a DDoS attack on the server. So basically it's normal to suspend the account in the first place. However, he explained that his computed has been hacked and you were ok to open his account again.

So  he have the right to ask for a total refund at this time. You acted childish when he said that he bough another VPN by changing your mind and this is not very professional. In top of that, IF he did not this intentionaly he did not broke any legal laws (and so terms).

It's like suing someone that killed a person with his car because a guy cutted his brakes.

[sckirklan 2]

Good, we don't need any more people attacking internet infrastructure just so some fucker can stroke their hacker ego. In a semi-unrelated note, its very clever that the system was able to fend of the attack on its own (supposedly) may i ask if its possible this kind of ip logging and defense mechanisms may initiate itself by accident? For example if i downloaded hundreds of gigabytes at a time (files, games, video etc.)  over a short period of time due to high speeds could that make the system log my ip under the misconception that it is under attack?

Personally, I wouldn't expect so.  That many outbound connections, I would expect, would make a poo router, a la walmart variety, crap out.  I would have also expected the machine OP was using would have ran debilitatingly slow.

 

konstigaord,

you mentioned that your computer may have been compromised

which suggests that someone else may have been using it to

run attacks. So that is why to me,  it's confusing that you made a note

of 'no traffic limit'. ??

OP assuming traffic and connections are one in the same perhaps?  Understandable assumption since during a face to face conversation with someone whilst still 'during the conversation' (connection) there will be a or many, if you're like me, instances where no one talks (traffic) but you're still having a conversation until you turn and walk away.  This is here for the OP's benefit should he/she ever return.  I believe ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of for why else would society invest so much in education?

[zhang888 1066]

I don't know what to think about this story.

This guy (or the computer's guy) launched a DDoS attack on the server. So basically it's normal to suspend the account in the first place. However, he explained that his computed has been hacked and you were ok to open his account again.

So  he have the right to ask for a total refund at this time. You acted childish when he said that he bough another VPN by changing your mind and this is not very professional. In top of that, IF he did not this intentionaly he did not broke any legal laws (and so terms).

It's like suing someone that killed a person with his car because a guy cutted his brakes.

 

You are wrong, starting from the point that you believe "his computer was hacked". A hacked computer doesn't attack

other servers in the same facility, unless it is some kind of a new "Anti-AirVPN" malware, which by a total coincidence,

attacked him just 2 days after he bought his first month subscription. Very tragic chain of events.

 

2) He clearly stated he doesn't want to be a member anymore and he bought the super-premium life saving package,

worth $300 with some other provider. The only question I have here is what is the definition of lifetime, but this is his right.

The point of un-suspending the account would be useless here. He already got the mega-premium service with others.

 

 

Your example with the rented car is horribly wrong, based on the chain of events.

A better example would be, a person that rented a car with fake ID (since he paid with Bitcoins, although claiming he is

not so technical so this is a clear attempt to hide his ID. Same as his Tutanota mail provider).

So a guy that renter a car from the park, with a fake or incomplete ID, used this car to deliberately collide and destroy

other cars in THAT SAME car park, claiming some kind of loss control while damaging many cars in that time.

Another coincidence, isn't it?

 

If you are still not convinced this is some shill troll (from another provider?), take a look at this.

Bought a $7 plan from AirVPN, was "not satisfied" and now threatening to post many bad reviews

and opened this topic with so many screenshots, just for the $7 refund. Well, for some people this might mean

a lot of money, so I don't judge the amount. The only mystery fact here is that he was able to spend $300 (!????)

on some other provider, without any meaningful reason other than to discredit Air. Does it sound like a horrible

chain of coincidences? In science, the easiest explanation to a phenomena is considered the most plausible one.

 

 

In any case, please review the ToS, the section of refunds. No refunds are given after the initial 3 days, which

are still considered as a trial period, if the user was not able to connect. Since this user was able to connect,

and his account was totally fine (he even managed to DDoS from it), there was absolutely no reason for a refund.

Please check the ToS/AUP of any hosting company, at your own choice. Users abusing the service are suspended

without notice (in some cases 24 hours notice, depends on the case), but are never refunded.

Once you refund an abuser/spammer/malware writer, you are just allowing him to open another account and continue

doing the same. No web-hosting company, let alone VPN providers, refunds abusers.

[snapz 37]

zhang888 - 100% agree with your statement above and with the statement of AIR in general in this case

[victorab 12]

 

I don't know what to think about this story.

This guy (or the computer's guy) launched a DDoS attack on the server. So basically it's normal to suspend the account in the first place. However, he explained that his computed has been hacked and you were ok to open his account again.

So  he have the right to ask for a total refund at this time. You acted childish when he said that he bough another VPN by changing your mind and this is not very professional. In top of that, IF he did not this intentionaly he did not broke any legal laws (and so terms).

It's like suing someone that killed a person with his car because a guy cutted his brakes.

You are wrong, starting from the point that you believe "his computer was hacked". A hacked computer doesn't attack

other servers in the same facility, unless it is some kind of a new "Anti-AirVPN" malware, which by a total coincidence,

attacked him just 2 days after he bought his first month subscription. Very tragic chain of events.

 

2) He clearly stated he doesn't want to be a member anymore and he bought the super-premium life saving package,

worth $300 with some other provider. The only question I have here is what is the definition of lifetime, but this is his right.

The point of un-suspending the account would be useless here. He already got the mega-premium service with others.

 

 

Your example with the rented car is horribly wrong, based on the chain of events.

A better example would be, a person that rented a car with fake ID (since he paid with Bitcoins, although claiming he is

not so technical so this is a clear attempt to hide his ID. Same as his Tutanota mail provider).

So a guy that renter a car from the park, with a fake or incomplete ID, used this car to deliberately collide and destroy

other cars in THAT SAME car park, claiming some kind of loss control while damaging many cars in that time.

Another coincidence, isn't it?

 

If you are still not convinced this is some shill troll (from another provider?), take a look at this.

Bought a $7 plan from AirVPN, was "not satisfied" and now threatening to post many bad reviews

and opened this topic with so many screenshots, just for the $7 refund. Well, for some people this might mean

a lot of money, so I don't judge the amount. The only mystery fact here is that he was able to spend $300 (!????)

on some other provider, without any meaningful reason other than to discredit Air. Does it sound like a horrible

chain of coincidences? In science, the easiest explanation to a phenomena is considered the most plausible one.

 

 

In any case, please review the ToS, the section of refunds. No refunds are given after the initial 3 days, which

are still considered as a trial period, if the user was not able to connect. Since this user was able to connect,

and his account was totally fine (he even managed to DDoS from it), there was absolutely no reason for a refund.

Please check the ToS/AUP of any hosting company, at your own choice. Users abusing the service are suspended

without notice (in some cases 24 hours notice, depends on the case), but are never refunded.

Once you refund an abuser/spammer/malware writer, you are just allowing him to open another account and continue

doing the same. No web-hosting company, let alone VPN providers, refunds abusers.

Yeah, I also think that is computer was not hacked.Just the fact of using AirVPN shows that he probably knows what is SYN flood. I did'nt know that the 3 days was passed. But if the Staff said that he can have his account re-opened  it's not understandable to refuse just after because the guy talked about another VPN.

He have the right to be as anonymous as he wants so the fact that he used Bitcoin  and a secure mail provider is also not an argument. But if the 3-days refund is passed so obviously he can't ask for a refund.

[Guest]

Even if 3 days had not passed when he abuse the system he is not allowed a refund, as much as it can look off that AirVPN "refuse" to refund after him saying he chose another provider that doesn't mean that they didn't decide not to give him the account back after he said he didn't wanna use the AirVPN services and them offering to unsuspend the account after it being abused was a courtesy not a right for him. Plus once the account is suspended for abuse he would have no right to a refund even if they offer to unsuspend it, it was still suspended at the time of asking for a refund.

Yeah, I also think that is computer was not hacked.Just the fact of using AirVPN shows that he probably knows what is SYN flood. I did'nt know that the 3 days was passed. But if the Staff said that he can have his account re-opened  it's not understandable to refuse just after because the guy talked about another VPN.

 

 

 

He have the right to be as anonymous as he wants so the fact that he used Bitcoin  and a secure mail provider is also not an argument. But if the 3-days refund is passed so obviously he can't ask for a refund.

[Staff 9973]

Yeah, I also think that is computer was not hacked.Just the fact of using AirVPN shows that he probably knows what is SYN flood. I did'nt know that the 3 days was passed. But if the Staff said that he can have his account re-opened  it's not understandable to refuse just after because the guy talked about another VPN.

 

Of course. The re-activation was performed and then the account was suspended again for further infringements. In the meantime the user refused the re-activation in any case, but that's irrelevant as you correctly notice.

 

Kind regards

[rickjames 106]

Revamp of the car analogy.

 

It's more like.

Guy rents car from a car rental shop.

Guy gets in car from car rental shop then drives around the parking lot smashing the other parked rental cars.

Guy goes back into rental shop and asks for a new rental car because his is smashed to bits. All while claiming he wasn't driving.

What Guy doesn't understand is that the car rental shop is owned by professional race car drivers. All of which are apparently substantially more intelligent than Guy.

Rental shop still offers Guy a new car.

 

 

 

Entertaining thread at least.

[victorab 12]

Revamp of the car analogy.

 

It's more like.

Guy rents car from a car rental shop.

Guy gets in car from car rental shop then drives around the parking lot smashing the other parked rental cars.

Guy goes back into rental shop and asks for a new rental car because his is smashed to bits. All while claiming he wasn't driving.

What Guy doesn't understand is that the car rental shop is owned by professional race car drivers. All of which are apparently substantially more intelligent than Guy.

Rental shop still offers Guy a new car.

 

 

 

Entertaining thread at least.

Hahaha

[sckirklan 2]

Another out there possibility I'm wondering, I know it's another no-no but would this have happened if the OP was running TOR as an exit node?

Mostly just curiosity at this point.

[zhang888 1066]

Another out there possibility I'm wondering, I know it's another no-no but would this have happened if the OP was running TOR as an exit node?

 

Mostly just curiosity at this point.

 

Highly unlikely and next to impossible. The Tor relays will not accept such traffic (SYN flood) so this would have been

blocked at an earlier stage.

Please review this section for more details:

https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en#DDoS

 

P.S. all that car rental examples remind me a very old episode of "Jackass", which is about

15 years old already:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lciHCXQFkNk

 

This is almost the same as happened in this case.