Most VPNs sell themselves on encrypting your traffic to an endpoint that either is in a different locale to get around region locks or to put it out of the grasp of the RIAA so they can’t send your ISP copyright notices.
While remote access to a local network is a good use case for a self-hosted VPN it’s totally unrelated to the use case for commercial VPNs
DNS-over-HTTPS sounds like it’ll be the least used by general public since most people I know are still using default DNS settings which would point towards their ISP’s. I’m not sure how many ISPs have moved towards DNS-over-HTTPS or if they are even activated by default.
Most VPNs sell themselves on encrypting your traffic to an endpoint that either is in a different locale to get around region locks or to put it out of the grasp of the RIAA so they can’t send your ISP copyright notices.
While remote access to a local network is a good use case for a self-hosted VPN it’s totally unrelated to the use case for commercial VPNs
For the use case of encrypting your traffic while using a public WiFi, both commercial VPNs and self-hosted ones provide the same functionality.
I think the point they’re getting at Is that you can’t use a self-hosted vpn to hide your piracy activity because the link is registered to yourself.
Yes, but this thread is about security while using public Wi-Fi, which the original comment was saying doesn’t require commercial VPNs.
Yes that’s true. But also that’s the wink and nudge marketing claim that VPN marketers make while everyone knows the real reason you are using a VPN.
With HTTPS, DNS-over-HTTPS, and most endpoint firewalls dropping non-gateway traffic, the risk is a lot less than the VPN ad reads want you to believe
DNS-over-HTTPS sounds like it’ll be the least used by general public since most people I know are still using default DNS settings which would point towards their ISP’s. I’m not sure how many ISPs have moved towards DNS-over-HTTPS or if they are even activated by default.