Leaderboard

A warrant canary does not give you more security. If you think it does, I'm curious for your arguments. And you cannot make sure a given server or user is safe with it. Here I also would like to know the reasoning. We had this topic quite often when warrant canaries started popping up. At your convenience, just search for it on these forums, there is enough reason to believe it to be no more than a marketing gag.

Any change to https://airvpn.org/specs/ with this new capability? LOL, I misread. Nevermind!

This is not entirely true, it depends on the client. qBittorrent for example lets you change the listen port and the port of the internal retracker (which is useless in Germany, anyway). The default tracker port of softwares like OpenTracker is indeed 6969, but you will find the majority of HTTP trackers in the wild all listening on 80. It wouldn't matter, anyway, because this is an outbound connection for which a port doesn't need to be open explicitly. What I read between the lines a bit is that you are used to EMule which inevitably needed its fixed ports open to work. With BitTorrent you can use any port. This is not entirely right. DHT does not do anything with your connection. In simple, it's there to find peers in a swarm who have a certain file and exchange info about them. If your client is found via DHT, the ones who wanted to find you for example get info about your IP and port so that they can connect (= direct, incoming connection). Can't speak for any of the clients. That's an interesting thing to look up. Maybe some clients connect to peers themselves and ask if they need help? qBittorrent doesn't for sure. But from a programmer's perspective working on a more or less commercial BT client which may follow the standard but implements some features of its own on top, I'd say it's not that far fetched. Vuze is such a thing. This applies to when you're a seed. If you're a peer, you are making the connections. This might be the reason why you can download despite the communication port being closed.

https://bgp.he.net/AS268581

That's great!! Thank you very much for this server. I have a 150 Mbps fiber connection and I've done some speed tests, it seems that I can't get over 100 Mbps, is that expected? The speeds on Peony had improved a lot to me since the first time I tested it, it was on Sunday. Test results: https://www.speedtest.net/result/8213102294

Although tbe installation of a server in Brazil is good news for me personally, I am worried that it will soon be dropped for the same reasons that you discontinued your Italian servers. Many of the local magistrates here are just as corrupt, intellectually lazy and/or incompetent as their Italian counterparts. I say this as an attorney at law.

We cross-checked the reports of dozens of our customers with Virgin Media UK, asking them to resolve "airvpn.org" on two of Virgin DNS servers. Since all the reports matched exactly throughout one year, we can safely assume that the reports are reliable. It is also worth mentioning that DNS poisoning of airvpn.org is intermittent, and when contacted directly about the issue, Virgin Media responded to us that it was a technical problem, totally unintentional. How are we supposed to know? All in all even the cyber workers of the government of China are interested in our web site, not only with DNS poisoning but also IP blocking. Who knows, maybe it's really just an obscure technical error that re-occurs periodically. Kind regards