After Mullvad, IVPN is now also phasing out port forwarding

[EclecticBoar 0]

https://www.ivpn.net/blog/gradual-removal-of-port-forwarding/

For a long time I've used Mullvad. After they phased out port forwarding I gave IVPN a try. They then went the same way, and now I'm here. I imagine there will be others like me who have had a similar experience with these services. This is a brand new account but I thought I'd share this news on the forum for discussion.

Given the other threads on the topic ("Port forwarding availability change", "Mullvad Removing the support for forwarded ports") I'm looking forward to hearing from the staff about possible projections regarding the port forwarding feature. Hopefully positive ones. For now I appreciate the availability of the service and this forum.

[ss11 15]

AirVPN stands up and strong.

[EclecticBoar 0]

21 minutes ago, ss11 said:

AirVPN stands up and strong.

Let's hope it stays that way, for as long as possible.

As for the IVPN announcement, the way the loss of port forwarding is described as a net gain for the majority of users frankly seems disingenuous. As can be read shortly after:

Quote

"Since recent similar changes in the policies of another popular VPN service provider, we have seen a significant influx of new customers, and the risks posed by such activities have grown manyfold." - IVPN Staff

Not to fall into rhetoric, but it seems obvious to me that a "significant influx" indicates that "another popular VPN" (read Mullvad) dropping the feature is a more significant loss than IVPN would like to admit. Of course, this is likely IVPN trying to soften the blow. Still this points to a worrisome trend within the VPN space. As the post states, one provider dropping the feature leads to an influx for those who still offer it. After Mullvad and IVPN, what of AirVPN? I obviously hope for the best outcome possible, but I'd consider this a pressing issue for AirVPN which will have to be properly addressed, one way or another, preferably sooner rather than later. Edited ... by EclecticBoar
Formatting

[kbps 26]

Could port forwarding be closed to new signups temporarily until the storm has passed?

[ss11 15]

That would not be a bad idea. Again, the problem the way I see it is that some people use the port forwarding service to host malware.
No matter how much AirVPN wants to stay up and strong, this is against the AirVPN ideals that fight for a free, safe internet for everyone.

The catch is (and there is a thin ice here): DON'T PUNISH THE MAJORITY OF USERS JUST FOR FEW BAD APPLES. For many users, the services are irrelevant without port forwarding (p2p).

[cccthats3cs 9]

8 minutes ago, ss11 said:

For many users, the services are irrelevant without port forwarding (p2p).

Exactly, this is the reason why I signed up.

I am not opposed to eg. having to pay for a longer term up front to permanently enable port forwarding on an account. Something to keep it around but curb abuse, if that is something that happens or the staff are worried about.

[go558a83nk 352]

Maybe I'm totally wrong but I feel like the excuses for removing port forwarding (removing bad stuff from flowing through our servers) is just an excuse.  Instead I think that providers don't want to pay for the increased bandwidth usage that allowing port forwarding brings (e.g. torrenting) but they're not willing to admit that because they know their customers would riot.  I get it, costs have risen lately.  But, as the previous poster said, just increase prices for people who want port forwarding then.

[kbps 26]

Perhaps Air could allow port forwarding on selected servers only and not all of them.  This could allow for users that want to torrent, still being able to, but with a limited server choice while all the other servers could be kept 'clean'.

[EclecticBoar 0]

I fully agree that port forwarding is an important feature, and that its availability aligns with the principles and ideals espoused by AirVPN. Concretely, while the BitTorrent protocol is functional without port forwarding (on one end), it is severely crippled. The text on the AirVPN front page also states as much and all protocols are explicitly allowed. I could be wrong, but I believe that realistically speaking most of the concerns regarding the availability of port forwarding relate to torrenting. There is of course also the matter of hosting various (legitimate, innocuous) services.

The problem with discussing this, however, is that most VPN services are selectively transparent. On the one hand you have extreme transparency with the publication of security audit reports and legal correspondence (I think here of Mullvad posting a letter from Swedish authorities, for example). On the other hand, there is the extreme lack of transparency that is obviously an integral and desirable part of the way these VPN services operate, namely with the lack of logging or monitoring user activity. When it comes to the removal of port forwarding, it seems things are somewhere in the middle, and we only get to see part of the picture. If theirs (Mullvad, IVPN) truly were the only reasonable choices, then port forwarding would be an economically untenable feature. Or there is more than just the cost and profit analysis that makes more balanced/conservative solutions as proposed here and in other places impossible. Maybe I'm wrong to doubt Mullvad and IVPN, and what they claim is all there is to it. Still, I can't help but think that they both went with the most facile, safe choice, rather than stand up for their supposed ideals.

Edited ... by EclecticBoar

[kj7fs4fxeu9jhh 0]

So who is still left with port forwarding besides AirVPN?

[cccthats3cs 9]

1 hour ago, cja said:

So who is still left with port forwarding besides AirVPN?

By my count: AzireVPN, Windscribe, TorGuard, Cryptostorm, Perfect Privacy, Njalla VPN, ProtonVPN, PrivateVPN, OVPN, Private Internet Access seem to be the main ones.
There is a further list here but it has not been updated in a while (Mullvad/IVPN are still listed as supporting port forwarding) and a lot of the other providers not mentioned above don't seem to be that popular or well-tested for port forwarding. https://www.reddit.com/r/VPNTorrents/comments/s9f36q/list_of_vpns_that_allow_portforwarding_2022/

[Quallian 24]

20 hours ago, cccthats3cs said:

By my count: AzireVPN, Windscribe, TorGuard, Cryptostorm, Perfect Privacy, Njalla VPN, ProtonVPN, PrivateVPN, OVPN, Private Internet Access seem to be the main ones.
There is a further list here but it has not been updated in a while (Mullvad/IVPN are still listed as supporting port forwarding) and a lot of the other providers not mentioned above don't seem to be that popular or well-tested for port forwarding. https://www.reddit.com/r/VPNTorrents/comments/s9f36q/list_of_vpns_that_allow_portforwarding_2022/

This is where AirVPN's superiority becomes overwhelming. From single port randomly assigned per-session to inability to selectively link ports to devices and keys and other missing options (such as remapping), the other services are now lagging fatally behind airvpn.

[adrift33 1]

As a Mullvad refugee I just want to say thank you to the AirVPN team for your unwavering commitment to neutrality. In today's hostile climate, I'm sure that is no easy feat. So many services that once claimed to be on the side of neutrality and privacy have simply given up the fight. The fact that AirVPN has held firm in these times tells me that they are a trustworthy VPN worth supporting, and I'm holding out hope that they will continue to live up to those ideals.

Without port forwarding, torrenting dies, and that is why anti-p2p groups are trying so hard to convince VPNs to get rid of it. Unfortunately Mullvad and IVPN surrendered without much of a fight.
 

Edited ... by adrift33

[Television 5]

Refugees are welcome to AirVPN.

So welcome to AirVPN! 

[bnrrteterstnjrsj45 0]

I use mullvad custom doh dns-server.

[opethfan91 2]

For me, port forwarding isn't even necessarily about torrenting. Being able to ssh into my network from anywhere, and running a wireguard vpn server on my router all require port forwarding. There are tons of legitimate uses for port forwarding and I hope this feature stays here.

[rocky0244 0]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:54 PM, adrift33 said:

Unfortunately Mullvad and IVPN surrendered without much of a fight.

Mullvad did not surrender to the p2p overloads. In fact, they did not need to "fight" much in one instance because they have nothing to surrender.

See here: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-search-warrant-customer-data-not-compromised/

Highly illegal activities were being used via their port-forwarding service. Think of stuff like CSAM websites, weapons and drug sales, hit services, spam or DDoS botnets, etc. They did not outline exactly what, but they did comment on their blog that due to such activities, they were raided by local police, have had data center providers close their accounts, etc. It had nothing to do with p2p.
 

Quote

Regrettably individuals have frequently used this feature to host undesirable content and malicious services from ports that are forwarded from our VPN servers. This has led to law enforcement contacting us, our IPs getting blacklisted, and hosting providers cancelling us.

Read here: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/5/29/removing-the-support-for-forwarded-ports/

[keepinitreal45 2]

On 7/12/2023 at 12:32 AM, rocky0244 said:

Mullvad did not surrender to the p2p overloads. In fact, they did not need to "fight" much in one instance because they have nothing to surrender.

See here: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subject-to-a-search-warrant-customer-data-not-compromised/

Highly illegal activities were being used via their port-forwarding service. Think of stuff like CSAM websites, weapons and drug sales, hit services, spam or DDoS botnets, etc. They did not outline exactly what, but they did comment on their blog that due to such activities, they were raided by local police, have had data center providers close their accounts, etc. It had nothing to do with p2p.
 
Read here: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/5/29/removing-the-support-for-forwarded-ports/

That blog post is very vague. "Undesirable content" could mean anything depending on the jurisdiction. Also they did not state which specific laws were being broken, or whether there was a court order to remove PF, which seems like pretty important details to leave out if you are trying to be transparent. (unless they are under some kind of gag order due to an ongoing investigation, in which case, yikes.)

If they were not legally compelled, then the only other explanation is Mullvad made a voluntary decision to remove PF, which means they are not being neutral and have chosen to discriminate against a technology widely used by p2p users (which the anti-p2p overlords definitely will be celebrating). It might have been for their own convenience, or for personal moral reasons, which is entirely within their rights if they choose to do so, but it is an odd stance for a VPN provider to take, and indicates a lack of willingness to fight on behalf of their users. 

It's also worth noting that in an earlier blog post, Mullvad claimed the recent law enforcement visit was their "first in 14 years", and that it was due to a "blackmail" case in Germany from 2021. For a service that is supposedly abused in the ways you describe, I find it hard to believe that their "first visit" would be over something as mundane as an old blackmail case.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/5/2/update-the-swedish-authorities-answered-our-protocol-request/

If the climate has gotten so hostile that VPNs can now be legally compelled to remove essential features like port forwarding (there is thus far no concrete evidence of that being the case, only speculation), then all VPNs are in trouble, and we are truly in danger of losing the free and open internet as we know it.

 

Edited ... by keepinitreal45

[rocky0244 0]

22 hours ago, keepinitreal45 said:

That blog post is very vague. "Undesirable content" could mean anything depending on the jurisdiction. Also they did not state which specific laws were being broken, or whether there was a court order to remove PF, which seems like pretty important details to leave out if you are trying to be transparent. (unless they are under some kind of gag order due to an ongoing investigation, in which case, yikes.)

If they were not legally compelled, then the only other explanation is Mullvad made a voluntary decision to remove PF, which means they are not being neutral and have chosen to discriminate against a technology widely used by p2p users (which the anti-p2p overlords definitely will be celebrating). It might have been for their own convenience, or for personal moral reasons, which is entirely within their rights if they choose to do so, but it is an odd stance for a VPN provider to take, and indicates a lack of willingness to fight on behalf of their users. 

It's also worth noting that in an earlier blog post, Mullvad claimed the recent law enforcement visit was their "first in 14 years", and that it was due to a "blackmail" case in Germany from 2021. For a service that is supposedly abused in the ways you describe, I find it hard to believe that their "first visit" would be over something as mundane as an old blackmail case.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/5/2/update-the-swedish-authorities-answered-our-protocol-request/

If the climate has gotten so hostile that VPNs can now be legally compelled to remove essential features like port forwarding (there is thus far no concrete evidence of that being the case, only speculation), then all VPNs are in trouble, and we are truly in danger of losing the free and open internet as we know it.

 

I also emailed them directly for more details. While they did not provide specifics, I was informed that there were different severity of abuse.

The email to me mentioned "the worst kind of abuse" in methods they considered to keep port forwarding open, e.g., rotating the port, or having it available on a subset of servers. p2p of copyright material is arguably not in the class of "worst kind of abuse" in my opinion. The email mentioned the problem wasn't "abuse" but the "worse kind of abuse".

So I disagree this is about p2p.

[rocky0244 0]

Further, their website did say (which I quoted)
 

Quote

host undesirable content and malicious services

p2p is not hosting content or providing malicious services. p2p is sharing of files.

Anyway, I think you forget about other folks doing things to further their agenda and will push limits beyond peasantry p2p users.

[4696-5726-2722-9249 1]

I too came here as a Mullvad & IVPN refugee. Thank you AirVPN for holding strong and supporting port forwarding.