Except they support multi hop at the browser level only, on desktop only.
And they won’t implement it in the apps (see their GitHub).
I see your point although the PG requirment doesn’t specify that multihop has to be supported on all platforms (maybe its implied?)
- Multihop support. Multihopping is important to keep data private in case of a single node compromise.
That’s why I already asked to clarify the criteria.
Anyway I personally really don’t care of double-hop and guess that very few people use it, even within the people who wrote this criteria.
If someone is worried about a single node compromise, shouldn’t he use Tor ?
But I did not want to start a new thread to modifiy criterias to make Windscribe pass because then you will think I am shilling them hahaah
No, you seem to be ignoring what they actually said - No production usage. Don’t tell me to read stuff I have already read please. You can choose to believe what you want it to be (seeing as you proposed the tool).
Seems unproductive if your argument is “read this”, when I explicitly cited what their team said (check the Reddit link). Unless you are their representative and can refute what another team member said, I chose to believe the provider saying it wasn’t production.
Rest of the corrections are already acknowledged in edits above, and I do apologies from presuming instead of validating parts of my argument.
That’s true, we definitely should wait that they roll out FreshScribe to all locations and all users before recommending them !
I also agree. Putting it in waiting makes sense. Once they actually have audited production software, further discussion can help.
they actually said - No production usage.
What ?
I think that you and @Anon47486929 are simply focused on and referring to different (somewhat conflicting) statements made by Windscribe. I believe this comment (made in reference to the 2022 audit) is what @Anon47486929 is referring to:
The stack that was audited didn’t make it to production, so publishing the results of this audit is pointless. We further improved the software stack to the point that it warranted another audit entirely [the 2024 audit]
Yeah, seems like we are referring to different stuff. I was talking about the 2022 audit by Cure. The software they were using and which was audited at that time was never put into production. Mango seems to be referring to 2024 rollout of their new software stack which was audited by the other company ig. Threads are easier to track than linear forums for this kinda conversation. Thanks for helping with the mediation.
I think a summary that would be agreeable to all would be be:
-
There was a 2022 audit, but that audit was done on an earlier stack that didn’t make it to production.
-
There is a 2024 audit, that was done on the stack that is being rolled out in production currently, but that rollout is not yet complete, so some of the current infrastructure remains un-audited.
-
Once the ‘freshscribe’ rollout is complete, the 2024 audit will be relevant and apply to the stack being used in production.
You nicely corrected my post that tried to summarize.
Cure53 audited their pre-Production Alpha stack in December 2022. This stack was running in production for a selected group of beta testers.
That’s wrong. Like you said, it did not make it to production at all. They modified the new infrastructure they were building and it’s this one (the one that was audited by PacketLabs) that was running in production for “a selected group of beta testers”.
You nicely corrected
This may be the first time in the history of the internet that not one, not two, not three but four of us separately acknowledged being wrong about something we said or thought in a single thread. it’s quite refreshing.
frame this moment ya’ll