I suppose the real crux of the question is: how far is too
Network users are quite happy for CS staff to face off against LEOs and intelligence agencies in order to protect their identities and browsing habits, but are suddenly up in arms at a mechanism that could quite literally save their hides from the latest crypto-ransomware (or worse), which is now starting to be deployed through ad-networks
Don't get me wrong, I see the other side of the argument as well. "We do this to keep you safe" is a line trotted out far often by malicious state actors whose every intention is to do the opposite. By definition, "a free and open Internet" is exactly that - driven by open specifications, (ideally) open source code and free of unnecessary meddling and interference.
So let me ask this: if - instead of refusing to resolve ad-network FQDNs in the first place - the CS team resolved those FQDNs and then implemented an exit-side anti-virus scanner which would quarantine any malware coming from those domains, would you cry about that as well? Would you rather that malware make its way safely onto your (more than likely Windows) O.S. install?
I certainly didn't hear anyone screaming when the CS team rolled out WebRTC protection. Why not? Surely you didn't want your network traffic blocked
, did you?
So, I ask again: how far is too
Bear in mind (as was pointed out in the main thread), 99% of CS users are a)
NOT power users and b)
will most likely be Windows users. So that's 1)
not tech-savvy and 2)
highly vulnerable: a poor combination. Also consider that there will also be an increasing number of Android (including smart TVs) and iOS devices using the CryptoStorm network. Those devices are just as vulnerable as any Windows install, if not more so.
Also bear in mind that these ad-networks are a pretty good platform for CINs
, at least to my way of thinking. It's a pointless exercise having cryptographically-validated OpenVPN and HTTPS sessions if you're only going to transport zero-day malware along them anyway.
Maybe Cryptostorm users don't realise how important this network is, what it can support and what it means for the future. Maybe Cryptostorm users don't realise what they are getting access to for $6/month. There's a level of vision and technical skill here that I have not seen present in the offerings of other VPN providers.
I guess what I'm saying here is this: rather than blindly raging that your traffic is being interfered with, take the time to evaluate what
exactly is being done, and why
So one more time: how far is too