←back to thread

Ask HN: The government of my country blocked VPN access. What should I use?

1308 points rickybule | 3 comments | 28 Aug 25 16:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

Indonesia is currently in chaos. Earlier today, the government blocked access to Twitter & Discord knowing news spread mainly through those channels. Usually we can use Cloudflare's WARP to avoid it, but just today they blocked the access as well. What alternative should we use?
Show context
reisse ◴[28 Aug 25 18:30 UTC] No.45055399[source]▶
You've come to a wrong place to ask. Most people here (judging by recommendations of own VPN instances, Tor, Tailscale/other Wireguard-based VPNs, and Mullvad) don't have any experience with censorship circumvention.

Just look for any VPNs that are advertised specifically for China, Russia, or Iran. These are the cutting edge tech, they may not be so privacy-friendly as Mullvad, but they will certainly work.

replies(13): >>45055555 #>>45055571 #>>45055581 #>>45055597 #>>45055621 #>>45055623 #>>45055738 #>>45055751 #>>45055839 #>>45056181 #>>45056448 #>>45056670 #>>45056859 #
tomaskafka ◴[28 Aug 25 19:10 UTC] No.45055839[source]▶
> Just look for any VPNs that are advertised specifically for China, Russia, or Iran.

If I was working for a secret service for these countries, I would set up many "VPNs that are advertised specifically for x" as honeypots to gather data about any dissidents.

replies(3): >>45055868 #>>45056002 #>>45058372 #
refulgentis ◴[28 Aug 25 19:23 UTC] No.45056002[source]▶
Mr. Kafka, suspicion is healthy. However, abstraction provides no way forward when faced with practicalities instead of theory. Creates a Kafka-esque situation - anything suitable is by definition unsuitable. Better to focus on practical technical advice.
replies(2): >>45056815 #>>45057545 #
1. sebastiennight ◴[28 Aug 25 22:00 UTC] No.45057545[source]▶
I think you might want to read about the Anom phone [0], supposedly encrypting messages for drug dealers to avoid law enforcement, which was actually sold by... the FBI.

[0]: https://www.inc.com/jennifer-conrad/the-fbi-created-its-own-...

replies(1): >>45058050 #
2. refulgentis ◴[28 Aug 25 23:09 UTC] No.45058050[source]▶
Sir Night: may I ask, what should it mean to me that some businesses are fronts?

I hope I do not present the presence of a dullard unfamiliar with this.

replies(1): >>45069389 #
3. sebastiennight ◴[29 Aug 25 21:07 UTC] No.45069389[source]▶
If you have a threat model, then having both 1. no reassurance of safety in using a tool, and 2. valid reason to believe that such tools can be suspect, is equivalent to certainty that the tool should be avoided.

To give an analogy, this is similar to why "security by obscurity" isn't a valid option if you're serious about security.

Let's say that admin access is open on my server on a certain port and: 1. I have done nothing specific to secure it, and 2. it has been shown that there are adversary actors scanning for vulnerable ports on the network.

I can either take your apparent stance that "this means nothing to me", or I can consider the situation equivalent to "this server is already compromised, I just don't know it yet".

In the current conversation, the combination of: 1. no reasonable reason to believe ExampleVPN keeps your data private and 2. high incentives for adversaries to create fronts plus proof they've done so in the past, means that for people such as myself and GP, the situation is equivalent to "ExampleVPN is a front" until we have a reason to believe otherwise.

Edit: Telegram's not-really-end-to-end-E2EE would be another such example.