r/RecommandedVPN

I’ve been looking around for a VPN and the more threads I read, the less sure I am lol. I mostly care about speed, privacy and reliability. Streaming would be nice too, especially when traveling, but it’s not my only reason for getting one. I’ve looked at the usual recommendations like Proton, Nord, Mullvad, Surfshark, etc., but every provider seems to have people who swear by it and others saying to stay away. For people who’ve actually used a VPN long term, what are you using right now and what do you like/dislike about it? Not really interested in affiliate “Top 10 VPN” articles. Just curious what people here actually use.

These days I don't know why, but I'm starting to lose trust in Cloudflare 1.1.1.1/WARP.

I'm using multiple legitimate accounts on some shopping platforms, and I've noticed that some accounts/connections get flagged, restricted, or treated as suspicious when I'm using 1.1.1.1/WARP. Sometimes I end up having to switch between accounts or connections just to make normal purchases.

I'm trying to understand whether WARP could be causing this.

As far as I understand, regular 1.1.1.1 DNS and WARP are different things. DNS only changes the DNS resolver, while WARP routes traffic through Cloudflare's network.

Has anyone else experienced shopping websites flagging their accounts while using WARP?

Could the problem be Cloudflare's shared IP addresses rather than the DNS itself?

Would it be better to just use my normal ISP connection with a different DNS provider?

Are there any privacy-focused alternatives that provide good security/privacy without websites constantly treating the connection like a VPN or proxy?

I'm not trying to bypass bans or fraud detection. I just want a reliable setup for my legitimate accounts without constantly getting flagged.

Would appreciate any recommendations or experiences.

The judgment passed by the Court of Justice of the European Union established that VPNs are recognized as "lawful technical tools." It refers to the incident when Dutch and Belgian universities decided to publish Anne Frank's manuscripts online, which is permitted by Belgian law and in the majority of other states where copyright does not exist anymore while in the Netherlands copyright will be valid until 2037.

The interesting part of this story is that the main question was related to the publisher's ability to escape liability in case of blocking the visitors according to the place they are visiting from. The answer is negative; it means that geo-blocking is not the VPN's responsibility but rather an issue for the copyright holder that needs to be solved by them.

It goes directly against the previous decisions made in Spain and France where VPNs have been regarded as "tech intermediaries" that must help publishers with their blocking activities. The European court has decided to go the opposite way.

A teen's diary case has become the strongest legal precedent for vpn-providers in Europe. It is interesting to see whether this decision will help vpn company in Europe.

A case surrounding a teenager's diary has now become the strongest legal precedent for VPN firms across Europe. Is this really against what Spain and France are doing, or simply adding to an already muddled situation?

Guys, I need your help. Who knows which VPN is best suited for the UAE region? I specifically need this region.
The matter is that i need a vpn for streaming in the Uae location on TikTok, but struggling with finding the best one. What can you recommend?

In the recent announcement, Microsoft described the end of the technology known as Manifest V2 from the previous versions of Edge browsers. Starting from August 2023, the old extensions built using Manifest V2 will be disabled by default. The technology will end completely by the end of 2026.

This situation with Manifest V2 can lead to the disappearance of the traditional version of uBlock Origin which is not affected by Manifest V3. Manifest V3 limits the number of filtering rules to 30000 items and removes the network access that ad blockers require to track and deny advertisements before they are loaded. The author of the original uBlock Origin called the implementation of Manifest V3 a crime against the ad blocking industry.

Microsoft attempts to present it as an improvement from the viewpoint of security. However, EFF claims MV3 to be a backdoor in favor of advertisement companies. Chrome had a similar experience in 2025 and Microsoft is simply following the path of Chromium technologies.

As a result of this, two of the largest web browsers in the world are now discontinuing the feature that uses technology to prevent tracking from occurring, rather than merely blocking ads. Firefox and Brave, however, are not embracing this trend. It's good to be aware of it before your own add-ons are discarded without warning.

The EU is getting ready to introduce stricter security requirements for VPN providers under its Cyber Resilience Act.

Basically, VPN companies operating in Europe will have to meet clearer standards around things like encryption, authentication, vulnerability management and secure software development.

What's interesting is that the VPN industry actually helped shape the standard, with companies like Proton VPN and NordVPN involved in the process.

And IMO, this isn't necessarily another "EU wants to regulate VPNs" story. There are a lot of random VPNs out there claiming to offer "military-grade encryption" and perfect privacy, while users have basically no idea what's happening behind the scenes. You're routing your entire internet connection through these companies, so having some minimum security requirements doesn't sound crazy.

The downside is that compliance costs could potentially make life harder for smaller VPN providers. But if this helps weed out some of the sketchy free VPNs and forces providers to actually back up their security claims, I'm all for it.

A Lei 15.487/2026 sancionada este mês inseriu o art. 226-A no ECA com aumento de pena de um terço a dois terços para quem comete crime do capítulo penal do ECA usando modulador de proxy ou técnica de mascaramento, ocultação, falsificação, alteração ou anonimização de endereço IP ou de qualquer outro identificador digital, com o objetivo de impedir ou dificultar sua identificação: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15487.htm

Apesar de a lei não citar explicitamente VPN, ela alcança quem usa Tor, proxy, DNS criptografado e alteração de qualquer identificador digital, incluindo a VPN. Como o artigo já traz menção à ferramenta, a discussão tende a migrar da prova do dolo para a justificativa do uso, onde o próprio réu precisará explicar porque estava atrás de um proxy. A mesma lei inseriu o art. 190-F no ECA, que autoriza a autoridade policial a requisitar registros de conexão ao provedor de internet sem ordem judicial prévia.

É a primeira vez que uma lei federal brasileira trata anonimização de IP como circunstância que agrava pena. Diante disso, torna-se possível alterar a redação da lei para ser replicada em outros projetos com a simples adição de um capítulo a ela, como já ocorre em outros países como França, Rússia e Emirados Árabes Unidos, que estendem o agravamento da pena para a maioria dos crimes praticados.

This week, ETSI published EN 304 620, the first recognized cybersecurity standard for VPNs under the EU's Cyber Resilience Act. Previously, any provider could assert that its encryption was "military-level" without any evidence to validate it.

The most interesting part is that NordVPN (representing Nord Security) and Surfshark played a part in creating it together with Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, Google, and Airbus, with Miguel Fornés from Surfshark being directly involved in parts of its drafting.

The standard will be available in the public domain this month while the enforcement date is scheduled on December 11, 2027 and violations will incur fines of up to €15 million or 2.5% of the annual turnover.

It looks like there’s a real progress when it comes to having VPNs validate their security claims rather than just market them, however, we should also take into consideration the fact that VPN companies participated in drafting their test as well.

What do you think? Would anything actually change by 2027?

Looks like the fight against illegal sports streaming in France is moving way beyond just blocking websites.

Canal+ recently obtained 14 court orders ahead of the new Premier League and Champions League seasons. Free, Orange, SFR and Bouygues have been ordered to block dozens of domains linked to illegal streaming/IPTV.

But here's where it gets more interesting: the orders also target public DNS providers and VPN services, including Google DNS, Cloudflare, Quad9, DNS4EU, Proton VPN, CyberGhost and ExpressVPN. Google and Bing are also required to remove the targeted domains from French search results.

CyberGhost and ExpressVPN reportedly challenged the requests, but the court rejected their arguments. The reasoning is basically that even a neutral intermediary can play a role in allowing users to access illegal content.

And the blocklist isn't necessarily fixed. New domains can reportedly be added during the season after validation from Arcom, with measures potentially remaining in place until May/June 2027.

Obviously piracy is one thing, but forcing VPNs, DNS providers, ISPs AND search engines to participate in blocking raises a much bigger question IMO.

Feels like we're slowly moving from "block the pirate website" to "block every possible way of reaching it."

On August 4, users in Russia started to complain about an unusual failure of many popular VPN services. Some security experts wrote that this is one of the largest attacks against VPNs ever seen, because the hacker activity was aimed at blocking IP subnets owned by VPN providers, not a single server.

This was not just an instance of a few servers going offline. The hackers worked on the entire hosting subnet, meaning that they made it impossible for any entities relying on this hosting site to use their servers. Although VPN services have made changes in their server placement, this is just the beginning of a long-lasting confrontation.

What does it mean: users in any country, especially those living in a heavily censored area, are now advised to have alternative means of communication.

Has anyone here noticed connectivity issues in Russia or nearby regions since Aug 4th?

I want to use for geo-block bypass. Classic VPNs are quickly flagged

Saw this news about Proton VPN and thought it was pretty interesting, even if you're not super technical.

Basically, Proton is replacing wireguard-go, one of the components used to run WireGuard connections, with its own new VPN core written in Rust, internally called ProTUN.

The important part isn't really "Go vs Rust" though.

Instead of relying on a relatively simple WireGuard client, Proton is building its own framework around WireGuard. The idea is to have more control over how the VPN behaves across Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, etc., and make it easier to improve things like connection stability, performance and battery usage.

It could also become pretty interesting for censorship. Proton says this new architecture should make it easier to build stronger anti-censorship techniques directly into the VPN stack. They're also working on another component called Muon, designed to help Proton apps reach their VPN API even when the API itself is being censored or blocked.

Longer term, Proton says this architecture could also provide the foundation for things like post-quantum cryptography.

So for the average user, you're probably not going to open Proton VPN tomorrow and notice some massive difference.

But under the hood, this seems like a pretty significant change: rather than just implementing existing VPN protocols, Proton is building more of the networking stack itself so it can control how those protocols evolve.

Spur found out that LG webOS apps contained residential proxy code in 42% of the applications and Samsung Tizen apps held 26.5% of the proxy code, which essentially allows the TV to function as an exit node for other people's traffic, in addition to Pac-Man game promoted as “Editor’s Choice” by LG.

People may not be watching over their smart TVs, which makes them an easy target. The SDK is there routing the traffic of different companies through your home’s IP with no information on it being shared or approved.

Last month LG banned this practice and Samsung followed suit this month. Google also aims to put a stop to this practice on Android. Even though the industry is actively responding at this stage, this practice was going on for months before this decision was made.

It is worth checking what kind of applications you have on your TV, especially anything free or less-known. Have you had any experience with such cases?

Hey guys, I’m traveling in the UK right now and I’m trying to access some US streaming websites, but obviously a bunch of content is geo-blocked here. I’m looking for a VPN with reliable US servers, good speeds for streaming, and ideally something that doesn’t get detected/blocked every five minutes. Anyone here using a VPN that actually works well for US streaming from the UK? What would you recommend?

I'm currently contemplating between IVPN and Mullvad.

I need my VPN for mainly privacy and torrents.

Also I need it to not be easily blocked by my college's wifi.

And have good Linux support.

Why should I choose Mullvad?

This is getting interesting. A new study commissioned by the European Parliament is recommending much faster blocking of illegal live sports streams, potentially within 30 minutes.

Fair enough, go after piracy. But the controversial part is who they want involved.

The proposal isn't just about ISPs or pirate streaming sites. It suggests extending obligations across the infrastructure chain, including VPN providers, DNS resolvers, CDNs and hosting providers.

And that's where I think we're heading into dangerous territory.

A VPN's job should be pretty simple: encrypt my traffic, protect my IP and give me a private connection to the internet. It shouldn't be deciding which websites I'm allowed to access because some external authority added an IP/domain to a rapidly updated blacklist. Especially when we've already seen how messy these blocking systems can get.

The report itself acknowledges the risk of overblocking, and TorrentFreak highlights what happened in Spain: research found more than 554,000 domains were blocked at least once during football-related blocking, with legitimate infrastructure/sites getting caught in the crossfire.

That's the problem with "just block the IP." One IP can host a ton of completely unrelated services. I'm obviously not arguing that VPNs should exist to facilitate piracy. But forcing privacy tools to become another layer of internet enforcement feels like a pretty bad precedent.

Today it's illegal football streams. What gets added to the mandatory blocking list tomorrow? IMO, VPNs should protect your connection, not police it.

According to The Hacker News, a Russian state-linked hacking group has been targeting IT professionals with fake job offers and interviews. And the scam is actually pretty convincing.

It starts normally: a “recruiter” contacts you about a job, moves the conversation to Telegram, and eventually organizes what looks like a legit Zoom interview.

Then comes the technical test. They ask the candidate to connect to the company's “corporate VPN.” First they provide a WireGuard configuration that conveniently doesn't work. Then the recruiter says something like “No worries, just install our VPN client instead.”

That's where you're screwed. The VPN, called SopraVPN, is actually a modified version of the legitimate open-source WireGuard client. Once installed, it can secretly execute commands on your computer and download additional malware.

The important detail: WireGuard itself wasn't hacked or compromised. The attackers simply took legitimate open-source software, modified it, and repackaged it as their own VPN.

Pretty clever social engineering when you think about it. Most people would probably be suspicious of a random .exe sent over Telegram, but a “corporate VPN” during a technical job interview? That sounds way more believable.

Would you have caught this, or would you have installed it?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

So Australia introduced one of the toughest social media laws in the world, basically banning under-16s from platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, etc.

Sounds effective on paper. Except… 81% of under-16s are apparently still using social media. Before the ban it was 86%. So after all that regulation, age verification and millions of accounts being blocked, usage dropped by… 5 percentage points.

And teenagers are doing exactly what everyone predicted: lying about their age, creating new accounts, using adults' accounts and, yep, using VPNs to bypass restrictions.

Platforms have already removed or restricted millions of accounts, but apparently that doesn't mean millions of actual kids disappeared from social media. One teenager can obviously have multiple accounts across multiple platforms.

There are some signs the ban is having some effect though. Snapchat usage among 13–15 year olds reportedly dropped around 40%, and some parents say their kids are spending more time offline. Still, the 81% number is pretty wild.

This is kinda the problem with trying to regulate the internet through age verification and blocking. Teenagers have spent their entire lives online. Give them a restriction and five minutes later they're googling how to get around it lol.

And Australia isn't alone anymore. France and several other countries are moving toward similar restrictions.