It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.
Without justifying it, the reason is simple. They are using a front end framework (bootstrap) that many developers use/understand that also supports 99.9% of browsers.
Running a browser without javascript that you still want graphics to display (so not a screenreader or text-based-browser), is part of the .1% they are willing to disappoint.
Do I think it is overkill? Sure. Do I still use jQuery at work even though the vast majority of its once handy features are now baked into JS in the browser by default? Of course.
I'd really like some version of E.G. Librewolf configured to spoof the exact SAME information no matter who's using it. Like standard resolution for a 1080p monitor, the same GPU profile, Allow device timing stuff to work but with a fixed profile etc.
Effectively, stop spoofing random data, start spoofing still useful but not for finger printing data.
> You can also enable it on firefox with privacy.resistFingerprinting enabled.
Not the same thing.
I use both Firefox and Mulllvad Browser side-by-side on a regular basis and in practice Mullvad Browser is far more aggressive in its privacy preserving measures to the extent that you do sometimes stumble across websites that are "broken" in Mullvad Browser but work fine in Firefox, for example the animated map features on the Ventusky website (which, IIRC, breaks because Mullvad is more aggressive at blocking JS graphics functions).
It's not going to be an issue for most things which have been properly thought out as they will have proper isolation between servers which should have separate identities. Reusing the same VPN for all servers and relying on an eventual expiry before the IP changes is fundamentally not a great approach to rely on for isolation.
Which you absolutely shouldn't use, because just like Tor Browser before, a vulnerability in the browser can be immediately escalated into decloaking your real IP. Ideally the proxying doesn't even happen on the same machine.
What threat model should you use Mullvad browser in? What threat model should you avoid Firefox-based browsers?
Please talk in terms of specific threats instead of fearmongering. For people wanting to avoid surveillance capitalism, which is a very common threat, I think Mullvad Browser is a fantastic choice.
For journalists targetted by nation states, perhaps it would be better to use Brave or Chrome inside of Qubes.
> For journalists targetted by nation states, perhaps it would be better to use Brave or Chrome inside of Qubes.
Curious why Chrome/Brave is recommended? I don't think any modern browser is better for anti-fingerprinting like the Firefox-based ones, including TOR and Mullvad Browser? Don't install random extensions outside the defaults and you're doing a lot better than a Brave/Chrome install if you want a usable internet.
I mentioned those because they are more focused on security than privacy/anonymity.
Chrome takes security a lot more seriously than Firefox, but Firefox does more for privacy. It would depend on the specific person, whether they are more worried about zero days or more worried about being identified.
Zero days for chrome will cost more than zero days for Firefox because Chrome takes security more seriously, there are more exploit preventions.
Brave is based on chromium and has a good update schedule, but it has some regressions like allowing manifest v2. Chrome is going to have the best update schedule.
Vanadium is the only browser that improves on Chrome's security.
One possible mitigation might be to run your system (or just the browser/certain apps) sandboxed to only communicate with the IP/ports mullvad uses for VPNs.
No, not usually. Few ISPs are willing to risk blacklisting.
Just like scrapers (and a lot of VPNs are quietly using their custom VPN clients to sell your own IP [and data] to scrapers) it's mostly a "don't ask don't tell" situation for IP sourcing. You use a multitude of IP providers and if a scandal happens you just say "We didn't know!" and move on to the next. Almost always grey-market, very rarely through legitimate providers.
>Does anyone know if this is any issue for non-vpn users of datapacket.com?
Probably not that much worse than other VPS providers with trashed IP reputations, eg. digital ocean, vultr, ovh. If you're blocking bots, the first thing to block is any datacenter ip ranges, not just known VPN servers.
Some VPN providers don't even have exit nodes in the country they're claiming. Instead they'll have their IPs registered to the respective countries in GeoIP databases.
This isn't a practice all VPN providers partake in. And from my own anecdotal experiences, Mullvad seem to be using services that are geo-located (I say this because I've tested latency between different endpoints in Mullvad). But it is something to be wary of with some of the less reputable providers.
> Will other users of tuxlerVPN be able to connect using my IP address?
"When you use our free residential VPN, you automatically agree to add your IP address into the community pool. This means that you are trading your own IP address in return for the ability to connect via the IP addresses of other users. You can opt out of this by purchasing our premium subscription; once you upgrade to the premium version, your IP address will be removed from our community pool."
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.
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.
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.
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...)
it should probably link to this: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/exit-ip-fingerprinting-between-v...
which is the blog post, rather than a list of exit servers
related to this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48143880
That blog post is a perfect example of when RFC5737 should be used.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/
On a side note, buttons icons on this page won't load without javascript. I cannot comprehend what would justify such decision.
It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.
It’s basic self defense. Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Might as well be licking seats on the subway.
If you trust your browser it's fine, and if you don't then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.
> then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.
how???
It’s a weird type of virtue signaling.
Without justifying it, the reason is simple. They are using a front end framework (bootstrap) that many developers use/understand that also supports 99.9% of browsers.
Running a browser without javascript that you still want graphics to display (so not a screenreader or text-based-browser), is part of the .1% they are willing to disappoint.
Do I think it is overkill? Sure. Do I still use jQuery at work even though the vast majority of its once handy features are now baked into JS in the browser by default? Of course.
The page already contains link to both of these resources
right. but one of those resources contains much more context than the other, making it much more suitable for the submission link.
I'd really like some version of E.G. Librewolf configured to spoof the exact SAME information no matter who's using it. Like standard resolution for a 1080p monitor, the same GPU profile, Allow device timing stuff to work but with a fixed profile etc.
Effectively, stop spoofing random data, start spoofing still useful but not for finger printing data.
The Mullbad Browser? https://mullvad.net/en/browser
Or tor browser, where all the features came from. You can also enable it on firefox with privacy.resistFingerprinting enabled.
> You can also enable it on firefox with privacy.resistFingerprinting enabled.
Not the same thing.
I use both Firefox and Mulllvad Browser side-by-side on a regular basis and in practice Mullvad Browser is far more aggressive in its privacy preserving measures to the extent that you do sometimes stumble across websites that are "broken" in Mullvad Browser but work fine in Firefox, for example the animated map features on the Ventusky website (which, IIRC, breaks because Mullvad is more aggressive at blocking JS graphics functions).
FYI here are the listed differences between Firefox-/Tor-/Mullvad Browser: https://mullvad.net/en/browser/hard-facts
If you us Mullvad browser, which has built in Mullvad proxies, this isn't an issue because it doesn't use wireguard.
The browser also has a cool feature in the browser extension called Random mode. This gives you a different IP for each site, improving your privacy.
You can probably also use it on regular Firefox.
It's not going to be an issue for most things which have been properly thought out as they will have proper isolation between servers which should have separate identities. Reusing the same VPN for all servers and relying on an eventual expiry before the IP changes is fundamentally not a great approach to rely on for isolation.
Which you absolutely shouldn't use, because just like Tor Browser before, a vulnerability in the browser can be immediately escalated into decloaking your real IP. Ideally the proxying doesn't even happen on the same machine.
"Absolutely shouldn't" is silly.
- Browser vulnerabilities are non-trivial.
- Mullvad browser's proxy feature only works if you're connected at the OS level, which helps mitigate browser level exploits.
Compared to any other off the shelf solution, Mullvad browser provides a good balance of usability & privacy.
Compared to something like you're describing, I agree it's worse.
What threat model should you use Mullvad browser in? What threat model should you avoid Firefox-based browsers?
Please talk in terms of specific threats instead of fearmongering. For people wanting to avoid surveillance capitalism, which is a very common threat, I think Mullvad Browser is a fantastic choice.
For journalists targetted by nation states, perhaps it would be better to use Brave or Chrome inside of Qubes.
> For journalists targetted by nation states, perhaps it would be better to use Brave or Chrome inside of Qubes.
Curious why Chrome/Brave is recommended? I don't think any modern browser is better for anti-fingerprinting like the Firefox-based ones, including TOR and Mullvad Browser? Don't install random extensions outside the defaults and you're doing a lot better than a Brave/Chrome install if you want a usable internet.
I mentioned those because they are more focused on security than privacy/anonymity.
Chrome takes security a lot more seriously than Firefox, but Firefox does more for privacy. It would depend on the specific person, whether they are more worried about zero days or more worried about being identified.
Zero days for chrome will cost more than zero days for Firefox because Chrome takes security more seriously, there are more exploit preventions.
Brave is based on chromium and has a good update schedule, but it has some regressions like allowing manifest v2. Chrome is going to have the best update schedule.
Vanadium is the only browser that improves on Chrome's security.
(Don't get your opsec advice from HN)
(I learned this from GrapheneOS)
One possible mitigation might be to run your system (or just the browser/certain apps) sandboxed to only communicate with the IP/ports mullvad uses for VPNs.
Do VPNs pay retail ISPs for exit points?
No, not usually. Few ISPs are willing to risk blacklisting.
Just like scrapers (and a lot of VPNs are quietly using their custom VPN clients to sell your own IP [and data] to scrapers) it's mostly a "don't ask don't tell" situation for IP sourcing. You use a multitude of IP providers and if a scandal happens you just say "We didn't know!" and move on to the next. Almost always grey-market, very rarely through legitimate providers.
I see DataPacket.com have VPN clients.
Does anyone know if this is any issue for non-vpn users of datapacket.com?
https://www.datapacket.com/case-study/nordvpn
>Does anyone know if this is any issue for non-vpn users of datapacket.com?
Probably not that much worse than other VPS providers with trashed IP reputations, eg. digital ocean, vultr, ovh. If you're blocking bots, the first thing to block is any datacenter ip ranges, not just known VPN servers.
why is this downvoted? I'm not aware of a single ISP that would willingly let VPN providers use their ip blocks for their exit nodes
Some VPN providers don't even have exit nodes in the country they're claiming. Instead they'll have their IPs registered to the respective countries in GeoIP databases.
This isn't a practice all VPN providers partake in. And from my own anecdotal experiences, Mullvad seem to be using services that are geo-located (I say this because I've tested latency between different endpoints in Mullvad). But it is something to be wary of with some of the less reputable providers.
Mullvad doesnt do that, but "ExpressVPN" absolutely does
Not retail ISPs, but many extensions and free VPNs route VPN traffic through the connections of those who use them.
This isn’t correct, the residential IPs are a completely separate and vastly more expensive product.
One such extension, https://www.tuxlervpn.com/faq/:
> Will other users of tuxlerVPN be able to connect using my IP address?
"When you use our free residential VPN, you automatically agree to add your IP address into the community pool. This means that you are trading your own IP address in return for the ability to connect via the IP addresses of other users. You can opt out of this by purchasing our premium subscription; once you upgrade to the premium version, your IP address will be removed from our community pool."
I mean, most “residential proxy” providers are selling access to hacked devices, or sneaky plugins
https://medium.com/@xianghangmi/resident-evil-understanding-...
Technical paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8835239
Is this at all related to Wyden's recent congressional warning? Are any other VPN providers speaking up on this?
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_letter_to_g...
it is a direct response to this disclosure: https://tmctmt.com/posts/mullvad-exit-ips-as-a-fingerprintin... and nothing to do with american politics
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...
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.
>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)
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.
>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...)