• Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The CPV paper was not doing what you are saying, defeating a VPN by finding your real location. It is basically the opposite - if you are using a VPN to claim you are in a place, it can verify that you are not in that place. It doesn’t find your location, it can only verify you aren’t in the area you claim to be.

      • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Not really, because the only reason they have a location to test against is because the connection looks like it is coming from the vpn server location. They don’t have any other location data to test against, and even if they decided to then run the test against every possible location on the planet, they still have the issue that their data is heavily skewed by the fact your traffic is flowing through a vpn, so your latency is not going to be perfectly matching their test servers unless they force the test servers’ traffic through the same vpn server.

        Nothing about this is setup to find your location on the other side of a vpn - it is basically testing if you are using a vpn or otherwise “spoofing” your location and returning a yes or a no.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          I was like 3 paragraphs into a writeup about response times, latency, probabilities, etc but I realized you already have all the information and can’t be reasoned with.

          You do know what I mean by “response time” right? The recieving computer gets the packets and sends word back. NOT the VPN node, the VPN is not unencrypting traffic to emulate a real computer, it’s instead just relaying the packets TO YOUR MACHINE. VPNs are not the perfect black box void immune to complicated analysis.