Jump to content


Good Proxy Host suggestions please.


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*

Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:49 PM

Well the media ran a rather scary story today. Which has me looking for a good secure proxy host service. Appreciate any suggestions which could be provided. If possible i would like to use the proxy for only one kind of traffic and run everything else through my normal ISP host. Unless there is a proxy host suggested which is extreamly secure.

#2 twinair

twinair

    Immortal

  • Hero
  • 47,671 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:55 PM

Appreciate any suggestions which could be provided.


Perhaps Tech Talk, or Networking.
This aint no fuckin' bible study. I didn't come here to save whales. I came here to shake my dick and have a great time.

#3 1shot1kill

1shot1kill

    Immortal

  • Banned
  • 64,938 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:56 PM

Appreciate any suggestions which could be provided.


Perhaps Tech Talk, or Networking.

Didn't they get merged with the Green Room?
"Why, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." The average rounds expended per kill with the M16 in Vietnam was 50,000. Snipers averaged 1.3 rounds. The cost difference was $2300 v. 27 cents. Certa Cito

#4 Director

Director

    Immortal

  • Hero
  • 40,460 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:58 PM

I use these guys.

http://www.strongvpn.com/

"The most powerful tool in the hand of the opressor is the mind of the opressed."-- Steve Biko

Those Who Dance Are Considered Insane by Those Who Can’t Hear the Music.


#5 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,510 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 06:25 PM

what story?
no pung intended

#6 robzy

robzy

    Immortal

  • Hero
  • 42,882 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 06:27 PM

I was wondering the same thing a little while ago. I was looking for something ~AUD$5 a month, and with at least 12GB of quota. Preferably more. I'd also be curious to see HTTP-proxy-supporting-direct-connections, rather than full blown VPNs. Rob.

Edited by robzy, 03 March 2010 - 06:27 PM.


#7 Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*

Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2010 - 06:33 PM

what story?



It seems news.com.au has pulled it. But thanks to paranoid whirlpool user's its been found cached.

http://m.news.com.au.../1/fi477222.htm

#8 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,510 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:15 PM

i dont get this: AFACT spokeswoman: ""If (the ISPs) say the IP address is ours, we can see what file people were sharing, what time, how long and how much they downloaded.... " if the IP address is whose?
no pung intended

#9 Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*

Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:17 PM

One that belongs in that ISP's address range. As in TPG's IP address range is different to Bigponds, which are different to Optus.

#10 garlic

garlic

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 765 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:50 PM

Roll your own... http://linode.com

I have one, use it for a number of different types of traffic. In the process of configuring a local squid cache to redirect certain sites / traffic types...

#11 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,510 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 08:05 PM

yeah, i know about address ranges. the sentence still makes little sense to me. which should it be: "If (the ISPs) say the IP address is ours, we can see what file people were sharing, what time, how long and how much they downloaded.... " a) meaning: if the ISPs tell AFACT that an IP address is AFACT's.....no wait, that makes no sense coz AFACT wouldnt be downloading and trying to bust themselves.... b) meaning: if the ISPs tell AFACT that an IP address is owned by that ISP....no wait....why would an ISP tell them anything of the sort when a whois look up would take care of that for AFACT.... c) it should in fact read: "The ISPs say "If the IP address is ours, we can see what file people were sharing, what time, how long and how much they downloaded.... "." meaning: it wasnt actually a quote from the AFACT spokeswoman, and just shitty article writing. d) ?
no pung intended

#12 Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*

Guest_MrInsaneBuff_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2010 - 08:59 PM

Its shitty writing yes, but AFACT seem to be admitting that they are monitoring peoples connections and the content they are consuming based on IP addresses seen on the tracker lists, once they have an ISP confirm that it is a real IP address offered by that ISP to one of their customers.

#13 bowiee

bowiee

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 9,453 posts

Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:17 PM

IMHO AFACT are full of shit, as usual. The story smacks of scaremongering, they would be hard pressed to find an ISP who would confirm any IP address to an outside party, let alone do anything about any alleged copyright breach.

#14 joemeow

joemeow

    Initiate

  • Quark
  • 21 posts

Posted 28 September 2016 - 06:18 PM

i use purevpn 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users