# Add VPNs that support port forwarding **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/add-vpns-that-support-port-forwarding/30609 **Category:** Site Development **Created:** 2025-08-29T15:51:54Z **Posts:** 26 ## Post 1 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T15:51:55Z Preface: Previous post [Reviewing Privacy Guides's Criteria for VPNs, and Cryptostorm and AirVPN](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/reviewing-privacy-guidess-criteria-for-vpns-and-cryptostorm-and-airvpn/30607) was deleted due to having multiple criteria suggested instead of one per post for some reason, so breaking it up here. If you disagree with something, please be constructive and specific so a discussion can be had. This is Post/Suggestion 2: Port Forwarding I think we ought to include options that support **port forwarding** be included (for various applications and connectivity uses, including torrenting–note there are non-piracy based legal use cases for this for people circumventing oppressive regimes as well). However, out of the available options on Privacy Guides (Mullvad, IVPN, and ProtonVPN), the former two have no port forward support at all (they dropped it within the past year), and the latter by PG’s own admission has “limited" support. As a baseline, if we consider what other criteria one might consider make a VPN a supporter of privacy, security, and anonymity, one might start with the basics: having **no logs** , **no analytics** , **anonymous payments** (meaning they accept at least one of either XMR or cash), and **anonymous registration/logins** (i.e. email is not required and/or generates a random alphanumeric “account”), and is (relatively) well known [such as showing up on Techlore’s list [VPN Comparison Tool | Techlore VPN Toolkit](https://techlore.tech/vpn/) ], we have: Mullvad VPN, IVPN, Windscribe, hide\.me, AirVPN, Cryptostorm, AzireVPN, and ShockVPN. Now, if we narrow this to only those that have port forwarding, we have: AirVPN, Cryptostorm, AzireVPN, and ShockVPN [Windscribe is excluded because they expire after 7 days, but will mention anyway]. Finally, if we further constrict the options to the larger of these providers (just to simplify the options and use age/time existing without security issues as a useful benchmark), that leaves AirVPN and Cryptostorm. So, why not add Cryptostorm and/or AirVPN (or others) since this would allow us once again to have options that allow port forwarding, which is vital for many applications, locations, and services? Edit/Double Clarification: I’m not saying that those that don’t have to be removed. Not everyone wanting a VPN will need it to have port forwarding, and I get that, but when _many applications and services require it_, it should be an option. Even the guide right now says: “[not having port forwarding as a] feature could negatively impact certain applications, especially peer-to-peer applications like torrent clients.” So it’s literally acknowledged in the guide as a downside already. --- ## Post 2 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-29T15:59:40Z Not every feature and functionality of an option should become ma criteria when evaluating the robustness of a VPN service including from a privacy and security POV. So, port forwarding is a feature that goes beyond the core functionality of what a VPN does or should do first. Adding this as a criteria is not helpful because people don’t go look for port forwarding option first that happens to be a VPN. People go looking for the best and most reputable VPN options from the POV of privacy, security, and the robustness of the service (jurisdiction, open source or not, reputation, etc.) The options you mentioned would also negate themselves on account of other criteria PF has already set up for evaluation VPNs. I don’t see why this needs to be an addition to the criteria already set forth upon much deliberation as it is. --- ## Post 3 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:04:14Z Ugh… I **don’t** want it added as a criteria. An admin changed my title to say that. If you read my post, you’d see that I just want some _OPTIONS_ that support port forwarding because of how many applications and features rely on it. --- ## Post 4 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-29T16:05:22Z > [@Jacob42](#): > > support port forwarding because of how many applications and features rely on it. Again, not the primary reason why people use VPNs and is considered an extra added bunus to a VPN and is not part of a VPNs MVP. If you read my comment again, you’ll see how I meant it. --- ## Post 5 by @jonah — 2025-08-29T16:06:45Z I am confused because we already don’t disallow providers that support port forwarding, so if you don’t want us to add port forwarding as a factor in our criteria then I am not sure what change you want to see here exactly? --- ## Post 6 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:12:26Z I don’t know how to be clearer, I want VPNs added that **DO** support it. I’m not saying that those that don’t have to be removed. Not everyone wanting a VPN will need it to have port forwarding, and I get that, but when _many applications and services require it_, it should be an option. Even the guide right now says: “[not having port forwarding as a] feature could negatively impact certain applications, especially peer-to-peer applications like torrent clients.” So it’s literally acknowledged in the guide as a downside already. --- ## Post 7 by @jonah — 2025-08-29T16:14:34Z Well, I do understand what you are asking for, but the problem is that to my knowledge providers that allow for port forwarding don’t currently meet our other criteria, so it’s those other discussions which actually matter here. We would have nothing against listing options that support port forwarding if that weren’t the case. So maybe you _do_ want to propose **favoring** providers that have a port forwarding option (but not **requiring** it)? Would that be accurate? But if you don’t even want that then this discussion is just wishful thinking that we can’t do anything about. I too would love to list a VPN that has a port forwarding option, but I don’t know of any that meet our other criteria right now. --- ## Post 8 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-29T16:16:18Z It is reasonable to assume people wanting port forwarding are tech savvy enough to know which VPN to choose and why for their use case for what they need to get done. I don’t know why you want it to get listed on here so bad - it won’t meet the criteria. Also, P2P connections are still possible without particularly and explicitly needing port forwarding. LAN connections are also possible, obviously. --- ## Post 9 by @jonah — 2025-08-29T16:18:59Z That is another reason this hasn’t been a major priority to look into FMPOV. You _can_ generally Torrent without port forwarding, which limits the impact this has somewhat from a censorship perspective. --- ## Post 10 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:24:04Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > It is reasonable to assume people wanting port forwarding are tech savvy enough to know which VPN to choose and why for their use case for what they need to get done. And how does that defeat offering such options on this guide? By this argument, no one should use this website and do their own research. Why not have such information in an already trusted place? > [@anon57862721](#): > > I don’t know why you want it to get listed on here so bad - it won’t meet the criteria. Because I like good guides and good information. And I like options and disclosures. Don’t you? And what criteria won’t it meet? > [@jonah](#): > > I too would love to list a VPN that has a port forwarding option, but I don’t know of any that meet our other criteria right now. So you’re talking to the choir. But why don’t the options work? If you’re going to say auditing, then see [Don't require audits for VPN providers](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/dont-require-audits-for-vpn-providers/30611) . That’s why I originally wrote them in tandem. --- ## Post 11 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:24:54Z “So maybe you _do_ want to propose **favoring** providers that have a port forwarding option (but not **requiring** it)? Would that be accurate?” Well, not exactly. I just think they should BOTH be offered. But perhaps. Edit: edited cause I misunderstood what you wrote --- ## Post 12 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:26:59Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > Also, P2P connections are still possible without particularly and explicitly needing port forwarding. LAN connections are also possible, obviously. Very true, but I also think handicapping yourself to less potential peers when you don’t have to is baseless. Plus, there are other reasons for port forwarding… gaming, hosting servers, etc etc etc. That was just a single example --- ## Post 13 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-29T16:27:27Z > [@Jacob42](#): > > And what criteria won’t it meet? If other VPNs met the PG criteria, it would have been added already. But I personally have not evaluated your VPN preferences against the criteria yet so I won’t say that with certainty. But it’s a safe assumption I feel. --- ## Post 14 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:28:58Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > If other VPNs met the PG criteria, it would have been added already. But I personally have not evaluated your VPN preferences against the criteria yet so I won’t say that with certainty. But it’s a safe assumption I feel. Well, this has been my overarching goal with all 4 posts. That’s what I’d like more investigation/consideration on. Truthfully I don’t really think all 4 posts needed to be separate points. The primary objective was to have other VPNs added, namely one or both of those two, and there were just multiple reasons _why_ I thought that. Whatever criterion they don’t meet, I thought I addressed in that 4th post, but if there’s more, then I’m open to discussing that --- ## Post 15 by @jonah — 2025-08-29T16:30:07Z > [@Jacob42](#): > > That’s why I originally wrote them in tandem. And that’s why I wanted this post split up, because I don’t want us to spend a lot of time talking about port forwarding when what you _really_ want is no audit requirements. If you just want other VPNs added then I will focus on your other suggestions that will actually get them added instead, and stop replying here. Edit: I’m trying to help you out, because this way we can focus on what will actually get a change made to the site, and instead of having one short reply from one person in your original post now you have people discussing every part of your original post in more depth :flexed_biceps: --- ## Post 16 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-29T16:31:29Z Instead of making 4 posts (which you had to, I understand) and saying similar things in each to make your case as you did, you could have spent that time evaluating the criteria PG has against those VPN preferences of yours to see why they can or cannot become an official PG recommendation. I mean, that should have answered your question. And then you could have shared your evaluation asking for accuracy of your assessment to the community and that would have made a better case for what you’re asking. If that was not the way you’re thinking about this, then what you really want is a change in PG criteria, not your VPNs to be added necessarily. Again, that’s what it feels like. And you could have just said that from the get go. --- ## Post 17 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:49:06Z > [@jonah](#): > > I don’t want us to spend a lot of time talking about port forwarding when what you _really_ want is no audit requirements. If you just want other VPNs added then I will focus on your other suggestions that will actually get them added instead, and stop replying here. Well, that’s not really an accurate statement. What I actually want is VPN options that support certain features, namely, a high standard of anonymity as in anonymous registrations and payments ie XMR (post 1) and some options that allow port-forwarding (this post). It just so happens that two candidates that I found–Crypto and Air–have both of these features (among others), that’s why I suggested those. I had seen one of them shot down before for the auditing issue, so that’s why I made that point as well. I didn’t necessarily want auditing removed per se, I want a high standard of anonymity and privacy. It just so happens that I find one method of achieving that (anonymous payment and registration) as more important than another (auditing), which was my justification for suggesting those two VPNs for example. But don’t get me wrong, I only mentioned auditing because it had been addressed before as a reason it was shut down --- ## Post 18 by @jonah — 2025-08-29T16:55:06Z What I’m saying is that if lack of audits is indeed the **only** reason those providers are not recommended, then all you need to do is convince the community that [Don't require audits for VPN providers](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/dont-require-audits-for-vpn-providers/30611) should be approved, and then that will open the site up to those providers being listed. It will be a much easier path to focus on convincing people to make just the one change. --- ## Post 19 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:57:08Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > If that was not the way you’re thinking about this, then what you really want is a change in PG criteria, not your VPNs to be added necessarily. Again, that’s what it feels like. And you could have just said that from the get go. To me both goals are one and the same. The reason for all the suggestions was to present them _as the arguments/justifications_ for having these or similar VPNs added. That’s why I didn’t present the suggestion alone, because, as I mentioned earlier, when they were suggested before they were either acknowledged but ignored or shot down, but I’m not sure what other criteria they’d be violating. But like I said I’d be okay with discussing that too. To me, they hit virtually all the same criteria/benefits as the ones currently on the list, with the only difference being _more private/better implementation of features_ (comparing on TechLore chart against different criteria for VPNs in general, on the website, etc. for example). --- ## Post 20 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T16:59:23Z > [@jonah](#): > > What I’m saying is that if lack of audits is indeed the **only** reason those providers are not recommended, then all you need to do is convince the community that [Don’t require audits for VPN providers](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/dont-require-audits-for-vpn-providers/30611) should be approved, and then that will open the site up to those providers being listed. It will be a much easier path to focus on convincing people to make just the one change. Is that the only reason? Well yes, making it meet the criteria would be all that’s technically needed to get it added. But I could have said ButtFuck VPN or Hotspot Shield… So now you see why I spent the time justifying/breaking down the privacy features of specific VPNs? I still had to argue for why those VPNs. (I mean, I would hope you just wouldn’t accept someone’s recommendations at face value without arguments.) --- ## Post 21 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-29T17:00:26Z > [@Jacob42](#): > > with the only difference being _more private/better implementation of features_ Isn’t this the crux of the product that are VPNs? Why would one not want VPNs to have the best implementation of the tech available? And if this makes a difference or a small difference as you’ve seemed to talk about it, it’s still a large enough difference to make the difference between being added as an official recommendation and not being added. That’s why I said in my last comment about me not being sure where you’re coming from with these suggestions and why. But like I said, you do you. --- ## Post 22 by @Jacob42 — 2025-08-29T17:05:39Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > it’s still a large enough difference to make the difference between being added as an official recommendation and not being added. _x VPN supports all of the features of the currently listed ones, but even more._ I don’t know, I think that’s a pretty good argument to add it. It’s KYC vs non-KYC to me. I think the implication is quite large even if the actual effect is unlikely (will someone actually get saved from this feature?) But then again, why have any privacy feature at all? Certainly you can just trust the provider, but if the provider gives me reasons that mean even if they did log me, they would have fewer ways to tie it to me directly anyway just by default of how the system is set up. I think more factors of protection is always better, yes. Maybe having such a high standard isn’t the necessary prerogative of this site, but I think it’s important, yes. --- ## Post 23 by @anonymous378 — 2025-08-29T18:35:58Z I don’t think there is a good argument to be made as to how port forwarding is a privacy benefit. Its a nice feature to have but I don’t see it as something privacy guides should focus on. Since Proton already offers port forwarding, its hard for me to see why changing the criteria just to include more port forwarding options is needed. From a privacy perspective its probably better to avoid port forwarding where possible. --- ## Post 24 by @Jacob42 — 2025-09-01T01:00:45Z > [@anonymous378](#): > > I don’t think there is a good argument to be made as to how port forwarding is a privacy benefit. Its a nice feature to have but I don’t see it as something privacy guides should focus on. Well, that’s not entirely true. It’s the basis of why Mullvad removed it (and IVPN, though I think they were just copying Mullvad tbh). But I’m just playing devil’s advocate. In any case, if you agree that it’s privacy-neutral, then it _shouldn’t matter_ to you if my request to have some VPNs that have port forwarding is approved because it wouldn’t have any downside in that case. The point is, is that is provides upside to the large variety of applications and instances where such a feature is required. So I think it’s good to have at least one. > [@anonymous378](#): > > Since Proton already offers port forwarding, its hard for me to see why changing the criteria just to include more port forwarding options is needed. This isn’t related to my proposal though. I’m saying this should be a goal/guideline that some VPNs listed do support port forwarding. As it stands, it’s _entirely coincidental_ that there is one listed that does support it (Proton). But if Proton were ever to remove port-forwarding, without my proposal, _nothing would happen_ to fix that. And, if you check my other post, I presented a problem that Proton has, which called for adding VPN options with stronger anonymity practices. (Namely, completely anonymous registrations and payments like XMR.) --- ## Post 25 by @anonymous378 — 2025-09-01T01:27:36Z > [@Jacob42](#): > > if you agree that it’s privacy-neutral, then it _shouldn’t matter_ to you if my request to have some VPNs that have port forwarding is approved because it wouldn’t have any downside in that case. Its just out of scope. “Why not?” is not a compelling reason for a criteria. > [@Jacob42](#): > > is that is provides upside to the large variety of applications and instances where such a feature is required. Its still unclear to me from a privacy perspective, why this feature has enough value to necessitate it being a requirement. What applications do you have in mind, that have strong privacy implications and need port forwarding, that are causing you to push this? > [@Jacob42](#): > > I’m saying this should be a goal/guideline that some VPNs listed do support port forwarding. But your not providing any sort of reason why that would be the case on a privacy focused site. > [@Jacob42](#): > > And, if you check my other post, I presented a problem that Proton has, which called for adding VPN options with stronger anonymity practices. The issue is you are creating a solution to a problem you created. Whether the problem or solution are what you say they are is still to be determined. --- ## Post 26 by @Jacob42 — 2025-09-27T02:31:39Z > [@anonymous378](#): > > But your not providing any sort of reason why that would be the case on a privacy focused site. I don’t know if you’re trolling, but I’ve provided many examples why. There are countless examples of applications that require port forwarding. If youve never encountered one then I don’t know what to say… Hosting game servers, torrenting optimally (not relying on the other person to have port forwarding), literally anything that’s requires a peer to peer connection like countless games and software, remote hosting, running home servers, etc etc. Literally just Google examples. Privacy users need access to these apps too, that’s why it should be on there. > [@anonymous378](#): > > Its still unclear to me from a privacy perspective, why this feature has enough value to necessitate it being a requirement. What applications do you have in mind, that have strong privacy implications and need port forwarding, that are causing you to push this? Sigh… For the nth time, I don’t think port forwarding should be a requirement. I think it should be a requirement that at least one VPN on the list have the option. There’s so many instances where one might use it. And just cause you don’t use it, doesn’t mean other power users don’t. I think you’re seriously underestimating the amount of people who use VPNs exclusively for torrenting as well. And I know it’s not a strict requirement, but it is if you want to maximize connections, because either you or the other person needs it. And if they don’t have it, then why handicap yourself for literally no reason?