Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
willis936 | on: Exit IP VPN servers mitigation rollout
And what evidence do you have that this May 14th disclosure has nothing to do with Wyden's March warning? If you remember your history you'll know Wyden tried to shake the Snowden revelations out before the Snowden revelations.

Dismissing Wyden's remarks as "american politics" is near equivalent to dismissing the entire notion of VPN security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-years-of-obscu...

jnovek | parent | next
Mullvad has explicitly given their reasoning. That's the evidence. Now the burden of evidence is on you to show that these things are connected since you are the one challenging Mullvad's claim.
asixicle | root | parent
It could be two things at once, and OP was just speculating and trying to add to the conversation.
john_strinlai | parent | next
>Dismissing Wyden's remarks as "american politics"

its a letter signed by american politicians, addressed to an american agency, about american citizens.

no scare quotes are needed around american politics.

(mullvad is swedish)

willis936 | root | parent
And would you classify Snowden's revelations the same?

The pattern is "Wyden rings the bell about a dragnet and then we learn the details about it". It just seems like an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence to say that "person warning about VPN compromises has not motivated any of Mullvad's recent security work". Just provide that evidence for your claim.

john_strinlai | root | parent
>It just seems like an extraordinary claim

what? it's not extraordinary at all. mullvad has a long history of being very security conscious. they do not wait for american politicians to direct their security work. i will stress again, mullvad is a swedish company.

feel free to read the co-founder's HN comment right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48145679. they found out about the issue via the blog post, looked into it, and fixed it. end of story. (it says as much in the first line of mullvad's blog post too...)

dannyw | parent | next
The burden of proving two events are related is up to the accuser, and rough time correlation isn't any evidence in itself.
eipi10_hn | parent
You need to give evidence that this has something to do with Wyden's March warning first.