Virtual Private Networks have become increasingly prevalent tools for protecting online activity, with their usage skyrocketing since the onset of widespread remote work arrangements. However, the question of whether VPNs are truly safe remains nuanced and multifaceted, requiring careful examination of both the legitimate security protections they provide and the significant vulnerabilities that undermine their effectiveness in comprehensive cybersecurity strategies. While VPNs do offer genuine encryption and privacy benefits in specific scenarios, particularly on public Wi-Fi networks, they simultaneously present a complex risk landscape characterized by weak implementations, deceptive marketing practices, and architectural limitations that make them an incomplete security solution by themselves, with research confirming that the industry’s privacy and security practices often do not live up to their marketing claims. The fundamental truth is that VPN safety depends heavily on the specific provider chosen, the encryption protocols employed, the user’s understanding of what a VPN actually protects, and whether it is deployed as part of a layered security approach rather than as a standalone solution.
Understanding VPN Fundamentals and Core Functionality
A Virtual Private Network operates by creating an encrypted tunnel between a user’s device and a remote server, through which all internet traffic is routed to establish what appears to be a private network even when operating across public infrastructure. The encryption process transforms readable data into coded information that can only be deciphered with the correct cryptographic key, preventing unauthorized parties from easily intercepting communications. When a user connects to a VPN, their internet service provider can no longer see the specific websites they visit or the content of their communications, since the traffic passes through the VPN provider’s servers instead. The typical VPN architecture employs commonly used protocols such as OpenVPN, IKEv2, and IPsec, each with different characteristics and trade-offs in terms of security, speed, and reliability.
The original design intention of VPNs was to enable secure remote access for business employees working outside the corporate office environment, allowing them to connect safely to internal networks without exposing sensitive data to interception. In this business context, VPNs remain genuinely useful for establishing encrypted connections between remote workers and protected corporate infrastructure. However, the widespread adoption of consumer-oriented VPN services has expanded their application far beyond this original purpose, with individuals now using VPNs to protect privacy on public Wi-Fi, bypass geographic content restrictions, and shield their browsing from various forms of surveillance and tracking. This expansion in use cases has created significant confusion among consumers about what VPNs actually protect and what they fundamentally cannot defend against. The marketing messages from VPN providers have amplified this confusion by making sweeping claims about anonymity and protection that often exceed what the technology can realistically deliver.
Security Benefits and Capabilities: What VPNs Actually Protect
When properly configured and used responsibly, VPNs do provide genuine security benefits in specific scenarios. The encryption that a VPN implements makes it significantly more difficult for local network attackers to intercept and read data traffic, which is particularly important when using untrusted public Wi-Fi networks such as those found in airports, coffee shops, hotels, and libraries. By encrypting all traffic passing through the VPN tunnel, the service prevents network administrators on public Wi-Fi and hackers using packet sniffing techniques from easily viewing the contents of communications, including sensitive information such as passwords, credit card numbers, and personal correspondence. This protection is especially valuable for protecting authentication credentials and preventing session hijacking attacks where an attacker intercepts and exploits session IDs to impersonate a user.
VPNs also protect against man-in-the-middle attacks under certain conditions, where an attacker positions themselves between a user and their destination to intercept and potentially modify communications. The encryption provided by a quality VPN tunnel makes such interception far more difficult, assuming the VPN uses strong encryption protocols and is properly configured. Additionally, VPNs effectively mask a user’s real IP address by replacing it with the IP address of the VPN server, making it considerably harder for attackers to conduct targeted remote attacks such as Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks that specifically target an individual’s internet-connected device. The hidden IP address also prevents websites from easily determining a user’s geographic location based on their internet connection, which is valuable for privacy-conscious individuals and for those wanting to bypass geographic content restrictions.
Furthermore, VPNs can prevent Internet Service Providers from seeing which specific websites a user visits or monitoring their browsing history, since the ISP only knows that encrypted traffic is flowing to a VPN server, not the content or destination of that traffic. This protection against ISP surveillance is particularly important in regions where governments mandate that ISPs collect and retain browsing data on citizens. For users concerned about tracking by advertisers and data brokers who use IP addresses and browsing patterns to build behavioral profiles, a VPN provides meaningful obfuscation that makes such tracking substantially more difficult.
Critical Security Vulnerabilities: The Five Major Risk Categories
Despite the legitimate security protections VPNs provide, the technology suffers from fundamental vulnerabilities that organizations must understand to make informed security decisions. The first major category of risk involves man-in-the-middle attacks that occur specifically within the VPN infrastructure itself, where an attacker who has compromised a VPN server can intercept all communications passing through that server. If an attacker successfully exploits vulnerabilities in a VPN provider’s network and gains unauthorized access to their servers, they position themselves to view or manipulate all unencrypted data within their network, enabling credential theft and data exfiltration at a massive scale. This represents a particularly insidious threat because users operating under the assumption that their data is protected through the VPN tunnel are completely unaware that the protection has been compromised at the provider level.
The second critical vulnerability category involves data leakage that occurs through multiple mechanisms beyond direct server compromise. VPN software, servers, and client configurations frequently contain misconfigurations that inadvertently expose user data despite encryption being theoretically in place. DNS leaks represent one of the most common data leakage mechanisms, occurring when DNS requests are not properly routed through the VPN’s encrypted tunnel but are instead sent directly to the user’s ISP’s default DNS server, thereby exposing browsing activities even while nominally protected by a VPN connection. These DNS leaks can result from configuration errors in the VPN client, operating system issues regarding how DNS requests are handled, or cases where the VPN provider’s infrastructure does not properly support IPv6 traffic, causing DNS requests to route through unencrypted IPv6 channels. WebRTC and IP address leaks represent additional leak vectors where the user’s real IP address inadvertently gets exposed through browser vulnerabilities or VPN software bugs, immediately compromising the anonymity that the VPN was supposed to provide.
The third major vulnerability category involves malware and malicious VPN applications, which represent particularly acute threats to user security. Free VPN services, many of which lack legitimate business models, frequently resort to business practices including logging and selling user data to third parties for advertising purposes, injecting malware into user devices, or engaging in credential theft and identity fraud. Research on Android VPN applications found that approximately 84 percent of tested VPN apps leaked user IP addresses despite claiming to provide privacy protection. Some VPN providers advertise themselves as legitimate security services while actually functioning as information harvesting operations designed to collect and monetize user data or even serve as espionage tools for hostile governments. Malware-infected VPN applications can not only harvest sensitive information but also co-opt compromised devices into botnets, deploy ransomware, or serve as entry points for broader attacks on organizational networks.
The fourth vulnerability category involves weak encryption protocols and poor cryptographic implementation, which render data theoretically protected by a VPN actually vulnerable to decryption by determined attackers. VPNs that continue to use obsolete protocols such as PPTP (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol) leave themselves open to exploitation through known vulnerabilities that security researchers have thoroughly documented. L2TP/IPSec, another commonly used protocol, has limitations regarding platform compatibility and is rumored to have been compromised by the NSA, introducing concerns about whether such protocols can withstand sophisticated nation-state attacks. Even VPNs using more modern protocols can be vulnerable if they employ short encryption keys, use outdated versions of encryption libraries with known flaws, or implement encryption incorrectly through configuration errors. The best practice encryption standard of AES-256 (Advanced Encryption Standard 256-bit) is considered strong in principle, but this protection evaporates if the implementation is flawed or if the encryption keys are weak or poorly managed.
The fifth major vulnerability category involves logging practices and data retention policies that directly contradict privacy claims. A large percentage of VPN providers maintain logging of user activities including IP addresses, connection times, websites visited, and bandwidth consumption, which means that data supposedly protected by using a VPN could be accessed by the VPN provider itself, by law enforcement through legal processes, or by attackers who breach the VPN provider’s systems. Research examining the privacy policies of over one hundred VPN services found that 51 percent log bandwidth data, with many also maintaining logs of connection times, visited domains, and other identifying information. Some VPN providers claim to maintain a “no-logs policy” while in reality retaining data for purposes including troubleshooting, optimization, and compliance with data retention laws. The distinction between a truly verified no-logs policy and a mere marketing claim is crucial, yet requires independent third-party audits that many VPN providers do not undergo and that even when conducted only represent a snapshot of practices at a specific point in time.
The Provider Trust Problem: The Critical Weak Point
The most fundamental vulnerability in VPN security is not technical in nature but rather organizational and involves the question of provider trustworthiness. A VPN essentially relocates a user’s trust in their internet security from their ISP to the VPN provider, creating what security researchers describe as replacing one potential adversary with another, potentially worse adversary. When a user routes all their internet traffic through a VPN tunnel, that traffic passes through the VPN provider’s infrastructure, meaning the VPN provider has the technical capability to view, log, modify, or monetize all of that traffic. Unlike your ISP connection, which is subject to legal regulations in many jurisdictions regarding data retention and customer privacy, a VPN provider might operate from a jurisdiction with minimal privacy protections or might be run by an opaque organization with unclear motivations.
The VPN provider trust problem is particularly acute because users have little practical ability to verify claims made by VPN companies. When a VPN provider claims to maintain a strict no-logs policy, users generally must take this claim on faith, though some reputable VPN providers have submitted to independent third-party audits that verify these claims to a point in time. However, even third-party audits provide only a limited guarantee, as audits represent a snapshot of practices at one moment rather than continuous assurance, and provider practices could change after an audit is completed, particularly if compelled to do so by law enforcement. A VPN provider operating in a jurisdiction with mandatory data retention laws might legally be required to log user activities regardless of their public privacy claims, though many users would never learn of such legal obligations without publicized legal battles. Additionally, the business model for many VPN providers remains opaque, raising questions about how they fund operations if they are not charging subscription fees, with the implication that free users are likely the product being monetized through data sales.
The provider trust vulnerability becomes exponentially more severe when users select VPN services based primarily on price rather than security reputation. Many of the most aggressively marketed VPN services have poor track records regarding privacy and security, yet continue to attract users through aggressive advertising campaigns and claims of “complete anonymity” and “total protection” that security experts characterize as dangerously misleading. The fact that a VPN application is available in official app stores such as Google Play or Apple’s App Store provides little assurance of legitimacy, since VPN applications have been documented using the official app stores to distribute malware and engage in user data harvesting. Trustworthy VPN providers are typically those that have established reputations among security professionals, have undergone independent security audits, are transparently operated with publicly identified leadership, maintain offices in privacy-respecting jurisdictions outside of intelligence-sharing alliances, and have demonstrated commitment to security through practices such as bug bounty programs.
Free VPN Services: Dramatically Increased Risk
The provision of “free” VPN services represents a qualitatively different category of risk compared to paid VPN services, introducing security vulnerabilities so severe that security professionals often recommend against using them entirely. The fundamental economic problem with free VPN services is that operating a network of servers capable of encrypting and transmitting large volumes of user traffic globally incurs substantial infrastructure costs, yet if users are not paying for the service, the VPN provider must generate revenue through alternative means. The most common approaches involve selling aggregated user data or unbundled user data to advertising companies, marketers, and data brokers; compromising user privacy for targeted advertising; injecting malware into user devices; and in extreme cases operating as front organizations for intelligence agencies. Research on free VPN services found that many were logging sensitive user information including browsing histories, personal details, and IP addresses, then selling this information to third parties, completely defeating the privacy purpose that motivated users to adopt the VPN in the first first place.
Free VPN providers typically lack the financial resources to develop and maintain strong security protocols, leaving user devices vulnerable to a wide spectrum of cyber threats. The security infrastructure required to detect and respond to intrusions, maintain updated encryption libraries, implement proper authentication mechanisms, and conduct regular security audits requires significant financial investment, which providers operating at zero revenue cannot afford. Additionally, free VPN services often impose data caps that limit the amount of monthly data a user can transmit, provide access to only a limited number of server locations, and offer minimal or non-existent customer support when users experience problems. The most severe risks associated with free VPNs involve malware distribution, where infected VPN applications have been documented installing additional malicious software onto devices, enabling remote access trojans that give attackers complete control over compromised systems, and participating in botnet networks that commit crimes through the compromised devices.
The surge in free VPN usage following implementation of restrictive internet legislation such as the UK’s Online Safety Act has created significant organizational security risks, with businesses reporting concerns that employees using free VPNs on personal devices can introduce compromised credentials and malware into corporate networks. The data sovereignty implications are also significant, as some free VPNs are operated from jurisdictions with poor privacy protections or adversarial governments, creating the possibility that user data could be accessed by foreign intelligence agencies without the user’s knowledge. For these reasons, security professionals strongly recommend that users seeking VPN services select reputable paid providers rather than relying on free services, viewing the subscription cost as a necessary investment in maintaining device and data security rather than an optional expense.
Limitations: What VPNs Cannot Protect Against
A critical gap exists between marketing claims made by VPN providers and the actual protective capabilities of the technology, with many users operating under a false sense of security regarding what a VPN defends against. VPNs cannot protect users from phishing attacks where an attacker attempts to trick a user into disclosing sensitive information through deceptive emails, text messages, social media messages, or fake websites that appear legitimate. A user who receives a convincing phishing email and voluntarily provides credentials or personal information to what appears to be a trusted organization has compromised their own security regardless of whether their internet traffic is encrypted through a VPN. Similarly, VPNs cannot prevent users from accidentally downloading and executing malware files if they visit malicious websites or open dangerous email attachments, as the VPN has no way of knowing the user’s intention to download a file or evaluating whether that file contains malicious code.
VPNs provide no protection whatsoever against malware already present on a user’s device, which can freely access all information on the device regardless of network encryption. If an attacker has successfully installed malware on a user’s computer or mobile device, that malware can view everything the user types, access files stored on the device, intercept communications, and steal credentials without any impediment from a VPN. This represents a fundamental architectural distinction between what a VPN protects (traffic between your device and the internet) and what it does not protect (what happens on your device itself), yet users frequently misunderstand this distinction. Advertisers and governments have demonstrated the ability to track people through numerous mechanisms completely independent of IP address masking, including device fingerprinting, behavioral analysis, coordinated tracking across multiple platforms, and exploitation of personal information that users voluntarily share. A VPN that only obscures the IP address does nothing to prevent tracking through these alternative channels.
Additionally, VPNs cannot protect against account compromise when a user employs weak passwords, reuses passwords across multiple services, or falls victim to password spraying attacks where an attacker attempts to access accounts using commonly used password combinations. If a user’s credentials to a banking website or email service are compromised through weak password hygiene, a VPN cannot prevent the attacker from using those credentials to access the account even though the attacker’s traffic passes through a VPN tunnel. The security of sessions depends on far more than just the encryption of traffic in transit; it depends on proper authentication, strong access controls, and protection of credentials and session tokens, none of which a VPN addresses. VPNs also cannot protect against social engineering attacks where an attacker manipulates a person through psychological tactics to reveal sensitive information or take actions that compromise security.
Best Practices for Secure VPN Usage and Configuration
For users who determine that a VPN is appropriate for their security needs, implementing best practices significantly enhances the protective value provided while reducing vulnerability to common attack vectors. The first essential practice involves carefully selecting a VPN provider with a documented reputation for security, privacy-conscious practices, and transparency regarding its business model and data handling policies. Security professionals recommend looking for VPN providers that have undergone independent third-party security audits and that make the audit results publicly available, providers that maintain offices and server infrastructure in privacy-respecting jurisdictions outside of intelligence-sharing alliances like the Five Eyes, Nine Eyes, or Fourteen Eyes networks, and providers with explicit no-logs policies that have been verified through legal proceedings or external audits. Reputable VPN providers typically maintain transparent leadership structures, operate bug bounty programs that reward security researchers for identifying vulnerabilities, use open-source software that allows community review, and regularly conduct internal security assessments.
The second best practice involves enabling and properly configuring critical VPN security features that prevent data leakage when the VPN connection drops or is interrupted. A kill switch feature represents an essential security safeguard that automatically terminates all internet traffic if the VPN connection unexpectedly disconnects, preventing the user’s device from reverting to an unencrypted connection and inadvertently exposing traffic. Users should verify that their chosen VPN actually implements an effective kill switch rather than merely claiming to have one, as some VPN kill switches fail to properly block traffic in practice. DNS leak protection and IPv6 leak protection features also warrant explicit verification, as many VPNs fail to properly prevent DNS requests from routing outside the encrypted tunnel or fail to block IPv6 traffic that could leak the user’s real IP address. Users can test their VPN configuration using freely available online tools such as ipleak.net and dnsleaktest.com to verify that no leaks are occurring before relying on the VPN for sensitive activities.
The third best practice involves selecting appropriate encryption protocols and authentication methods that provide strong security without undue performance degradation. VPNs should employ modern encryption protocols such as OpenVPN or WireGuard, avoid obsolete protocols such as PPTP and L2TP/IPSec due to documented vulnerabilities, and implement AES-256 encryption at minimum. For users with specific security requirements, some VPN providers offer additional features such as double VPN where traffic is routed through multiple VPN servers in series, or multihop routing that routes traffic through a chain of different VPN providers. Strong authentication through multifactor authentication substantially reduces the risk of unauthorized account access, with passwordless authentication based on FIDO standards providing the strongest protections against phishing and man-in-the-middle attacks.
The fourth best practice involves understanding and consciously configuring split tunneling settings based on security needs. Split tunneling allows certain traffic to bypass the VPN and route directly through the user’s normal internet connection, which can improve performance for non-sensitive activities but increases security risks by allowing some traffic to be exposed. For users primarily concerned with privacy on public Wi-Fi, split tunneling configured to protect sensitive applications such as browsers and email while allowing other traffic to route normally might represent an acceptable trade-off between security and performance. However, for users working with highly sensitive data, complete tunneling where all traffic passes through the VPN regardless of the destination typically provides stronger security despite the performance cost.
The fifth best practice involves maintaining updated VPN software and systems with the latest security patches, as outdated software frequently contains known vulnerabilities that attackers actively exploit. VPN providers regularly release security updates addressing newly discovered vulnerabilities, and users who delay applying these updates leave themselves exposed to attacks from which patch updates would provide protection. Additionally, users should maintain current security software on their devices including firewalls and antivirus applications rather than viewing the VPN as a replacement for comprehensive endpoint security, with VPN functioning as one component of layered security rather than a complete solution.
Evaluating VPN Providers: What to Look For
The process of selecting a VPN provider requires more sophisticated evaluation than simply reviewing marketing claims or price comparisons, as VPN security and reliability vary dramatically across providers based on their actual practices rather than their stated claims. Research examining the privacy policies of multiple VPN providers found that 12 out of 16 VPNs examined made inaccurate or hyperbolic claims about their services, with many promising complete anonymity or complete protection from tracking, neither of which is technically possible. Consumer Reports’ evaluation of VPN security and privacy practices found that many VPN services fail to properly implement privacy protections despite marketing claims to the contrary, with issues including inadequate encryption, problematic logging policies, misleading privacy disclosures, and inadequate security measures. The fundamental lesson is that users cannot simply trust VPN marketing claims but must instead investigate provider practices through independent research and testing.
When evaluating potential VPN providers, users should carefully examine the provider’s privacy policy to determine what data is actually collected, how long it is retained, who it might be shared with, and what the provider actually intends to do with that data. Many privacy policies contain concerning language indicating that data will be shared with “service providers,” “business partners,” “marketing purposes,” or “as required by law,” all of which represent potential compromises to privacy despite the provider’s public marketing message. Users should specifically look for privacy policies that explicitly state that no browsing data is collected or retained, that metadata such as connection times and session information is not stored, and that the provider does not share or sell user data with advertisers or data brokers. Providers that make specific commitments regarding data minimization—such as immediately purging all data at session end or maintaining no permanent user identifiers—provide stronger privacy protection than providers that make only vague commitments to “anonymity”.
The jurisdiction in which a VPN provider operates deserves particular attention, as different countries have dramatically different legal frameworks regarding privacy protections, mandatory data retention, and government surveillance capabilities. VPN providers based in countries participating in intelligence-sharing alliances such as the Five Eyes (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), Nine Eyes (adding Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway), or Fourteen Eyes (adding Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden) face potential legal obligations to provide user data to allied intelligence agencies, substantially undermining the privacy protections that the VPN provides. VPN providers based in countries with strong privacy laws such as Switzerland or Panama, where providers have legal protections against mandatory data collection and data retention requirements do not exist, offer superior privacy protection. However, even jurisdiction is not determinative, as unscrupulous providers operating from privacy-respecting jurisdictions might still log and monetize user data despite having legal authorization to avoid doing so.
Users should investigate whether a potential VPN provider has undergone third-party security audits and whether the results are publicly available. Leading VPN providers such as NordVPN, ExpressVPN, ProtonVPN, and others have demonstrated commitment to transparency by undergoing comprehensive security audits by respected third-party firms and publishing the audit results. These audits typically examine the provider’s infrastructure, server configurations, logging systems, access controls, and data handling practices, and provide independent expert verification that the provider’s claims match its actual practices. However, users should be aware that audits represent only a point-in-time assessment and do not provide continuous guarantee of practices, and that audit scope varies, with some audits examining only limited aspects such as browser extensions rather than the entire VPN service.
The provider’s business model and how it generates revenue should be transparent and sustainable without requiring user data monetization. Providers charging reasonable subscription fees without simultaneously operating ad-supported free tiers, selling user data, or operating unclear business models provide stronger assurance of proper incentives. Users should investigate whether the VPN provider is operated by a company with a reputation in the security industry, whether leadership is publicly identified and reachable for accountability, whether the provider offers customer support and has documentation addressing common issues, and whether the provider maintains an active security research engagement through bug bounty programs that reward external researchers for identifying vulnerabilities.
The Gap Between Marketing Claims and Reality
A systematic gap exists between the claims made by VPN providers in their marketing materials and the actual protective capabilities of their services, with the gap stemming partly from exaggerated claims and partly from genuine confusion about what VPNs can realistically accomplish. Many VPN providers market their services as providing “complete anonymity” or guaranteeing that users cannot be identified or tracked, claims that fundamentally misrepresent the actual capabilities of VPN technology. A VPN obscures a user’s IP address and encrypts traffic to and from the VPN provider’s servers, but this does not make a user untraceable or completely anonymous for numerous reasons. A user who logs into personal email accounts, social media profiles, or other services while connected to a VPN immediately becomes identifiable to those services through account authentication, making anonymity impossible regardless of VPN connection. Websites and advertisers track users through numerous mechanisms independent of IP address, including device fingerprinting, behavioral analysis of browsing patterns, coordinated cross-site tracking, and exploitation of information users voluntarily provide through logins and form submissions.
Similarly, VPN providers frequently claim to offer “complete protection” or to “protect against all hacking,” claims that security professionals characterize as dangerously misleading. A VPN does not protect against malware, phishing attacks, password compromise, social engineering, or any compromise that occurs through user action or existing device compromise. Consumer Reports’ evaluation found that consumers operating under assumptions of VPN-provided complete protection might feel falsely secure and take fewer precautions against actual threats, potentially increasing their vulnerability rather than decreasing it. The marketing message that “VPNs will protect you from surveillance” requires significant qualification, as VPNs prevent ISP and local network surveillance but cannot prevent government-level surveillance of VPN infrastructure, cannot prevent platform-level tracking through account logins, and cannot prevent surveillance through malware or compromised credentials.
The gap between marketing claims and reality appears particularly problematic regarding protection from targeting by advertisers and governments. Many VPN providers explicitly claim that their services protect against advertiser and government tracking, yet these claims are substantially incomplete. Advertisers have demonstrated sophisticated tracking capabilities independent of IP address, and a substantial portion of online tracking occurs through persistent cookies, tracking pixels, and cross-site tracking mechanisms that remain effective even when IP address is masked. Government tracking can occur at multiple levels including VPN exit nodes, through compromised VPN servers, through traffic analysis of encrypted data, through requirements imposed on VPN providers themselves, and through collection of plaintext data after traffic exits the VPN tunnel at its destination. The claim that a VPN provides protection from government tracking is therefore significantly more limited than marketing messages typically suggest.
This gap between claims and reality creates genuine public health and security implications. When individuals adopt VPNs based on marketing promises of “complete anonymity” or “total protection,” they might engage in riskier online behavior than they otherwise would, failing to implement other necessary security measures such as strong password practices, phishing awareness, or careful vetting of websites they visit. This false sense of security can paradoxically decrease overall security rather than increasing it. Additionally, when the inevitable gap between marketing claims and actual protection becomes apparent to users, trust in the VPN provider decreases, potentially motivating users to switch to even less trustworthy providers or abandon security tools entirely.
Legal and Jurisdictional Considerations Impacting VPN Safety
The legal status and regulatory treatment of VPNs varies dramatically across different countries and jurisdictions, creating important considerations for both individuals and organizations regarding when and how VPNs can be safely used. In most countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the European Union, VPN use is completely legal for individuals and organizations, though some jurisdictions impose specific restrictions on VPN use in certain contexts or by certain entities. However, a growing number of countries have restricted or banned VPN use, ostensibly to combat illegal activity but functionally to prevent citizens from circumventing government-imposed internet censorship and surveillance. As of 2025, VPNs have been officially banned in Belarus, Iraq, North Korea, and Turkmenistan, with VPN use being heavily restricted in China, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, with additional restrictions in countries including Venezuela, Egypt, Pakistan, and Myanmar.
In countries implementing VPN bans, the consequences for VPN use can be severe, including substantial fines, imprisonment, or both, with Myanmar introducing penalties of six months imprisonment or fines up to $4,750 for unauthorized VPN installation, while China’s penalties for VPN use can include arbitrary imprisonment for up to five years. Pakistan requires that VPN businesses be government-registered and maintain data retention systems that effectively negate privacy protections, while the UAE imposes fines ranging from $41,000 to $136,000 on individuals caught using unauthorized VPNs. In Russia and Iran, governments have deployed increasingly sophisticated methods to detect and block VPN traffic, including techniques that detect VPN traffic characteristics and throttle or block access to known VPN services. These severe restrictions on VPN use in certain jurisdictions represent genuine safety concerns for travelers or residents of those countries, as using a VPN despite official bans creates legal risk that users must consciously accept.
Beyond questions of VPN legality in various jurisdictions, the jurisdiction in which a VPN provider operates creates implications for privacy and safety through differences in legal frameworks regarding data retention, government access to data, and surveillance capabilities. VPN providers based in countries participating in intelligence-sharing alliances such as Five Eyes face potential legal obligations under those agreements to provide user data to allied governments for surveillance purposes. Conversely, VPN providers based in countries with strong privacy laws, no mandatory data retention requirements, and legal protections against government surveillance such as Switzerland or Panama can offer users greater assurance that their data will not be disclosed through legal processes. The Snowden revelations regarding NSA surveillance capabilities demonstrated that even if VPN providers themselves maintain strict no-logs policies, governments with sophisticated technical capabilities can conduct surveillance of VPN infrastructure itself, raising questions about whether VPN jurisdiction provides meaningful protection against government-level adversaries.
Testing and Verification: Validating VPN Claims
The only reliable way for users to assess whether a VPN service is actually functioning as claimed involves actively testing the VPN connection for leaks and monitoring its performance. Basic leak testing can be conducted by any user through freely available online tools that verify whether a VPN is properly preventing DNS leaks, IP address leaks, IPv6 leaks, and WebRTC leaks, with ipleak.net and dnsleaktest.com representing widely-used resources for this purpose. Users should conduct leak testing after initially connecting to a VPN and periodically thereafter, as some VPNs experience leaks only during connection transitions or under specific network conditions. More advanced users can conduct deeper testing through traffic analysis tools, examining whether any unencrypted packets containing identifying information escape the VPN tunnel even during connection interruptions. Research has found that many popular VPN services leak data despite marketing claims of privacy protection, with some studies finding that more than 80 percent of tested VPN applications exhibited IP address leaks.
Users should also test VPN performance characteristics before relying on a VPN for critical activities, as some VPN services provide acceptable speeds while others significantly degrade connection performance. All VPN connections inherently reduce internet speed to some degree due to the computational overhead of encryption and the additional routing distance data must travel, though quality VPN providers minimize this impact. Users should expect speed reductions in the range of 10 to 30 percent when using a well-configured VPN, but should be concerned if a VPN reduces speeds by more than 50 percent, which might indicate server congestion, suboptimal routing, or other infrastructure issues. VPN speed also depends on factors including which server the user connects to (servers closer to the user typically provide better speeds), the specific VPN protocol employed, network conditions at the time of testing, and the user’s base internet speed. Users should test VPN performance using speed testing tools such as speedtest.net while connected to different server locations to assess whether the VPN provides adequate performance for their specific use case.
Additionally, users should test whether their chosen VPN is functioning during the specific use cases they intend, such as accessing geo-restricted content or services that actively block VPN connections. Many streaming services including Netflix, Disney+, and others have implemented sophisticated detection systems that identify and block many VPN connections, though quality VPN providers regularly update their server configurations to maintain access. Users should verify that their VPN actually permits the activities they intend to conduct, such as torrenting, before relying on it for those purposes. Some VPN providers actively monitor for and block connections that appear to be engaging in torrenting or other activities they prohibit, while others transparently support such activities. Understanding these specific limitations before purchasing a subscription prevents frustration and ensures users select providers that actually meet their needs.
Future Evolution and Zero Trust Alternatives
The landscape of remote access security is shifting as organizations increasingly recognize the limitations of traditional VPN architecture for meeting modern security demands. A 2025 report examining VPN risks found that 65 percent of organizations plan to replace VPN services within the next year, with 81 percent planning to adopt or already adopting Zero Trust architectures as replacements for legacy VPN-based access models. This represents a fundamental recognition that VPN architecture, originally designed for smaller workforces connecting to centralized data centers, struggles to scale effectively to current distributed workforces, cloud-first application architectures, and sophisticated cyber threats. Zero Trust architectures represent an alternative security paradigm that assumes all users and devices are potentially untrusted until verified, implementing continuous verification and identity-based access controls rather than relying on perimeter-based network encryption.
The vulnerabilities motivating this shift include the growing number of remotely exploitable vulnerabilities in VPN products themselves, with VPN Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures growing by 82.5 percent between 2020 and 2025, with approximately 60 percent of VPN CVEs carrying high or critical severity ratings. Recent sophisticated attacks against VPN infrastructure including the UnitedHealth Group ransomware incident trace back to compromised VPN credentials and unpatched VPN vulnerabilities, demonstrating real-world risks. Additionally, VPNs present an externally reachable attack surface that threat actors can probe at will, while emerging research indicates that artificial intelligence can be leveraged to automatically identify VPN vulnerabilities through chatbots queried for specific CVE information, enabling rapid exploitation of known flaws before patches are deployed.
Zero Trust architectures address these vulnerabilities by implementing phishing-resistant multifactor authentication, enforcing granular least-privileged access controls based on user identity and context rather than network location, continuously monitoring for suspicious behavior, and segmenting networks to contain breaches if they occur. Rather than providing blanket access to network resources based on location within a corporate VPN perimeter, Zero Trust verifies each access request based on user identity, device security posture, network conditions, and specific application requirements. For organizations prioritizing security over legacy system compatibility, Zero Trust approaches offer superior protection against the evolving threat landscape compared to traditional VPN architectures.
However, despite the shift toward Zero Trust alternatives for enterprise environments, VPNs will likely remain important security tools for individual users and specific use cases. Individual consumers using VPNs to protect privacy on public Wi-Fi networks, to bypass geographic content restrictions, or to prevent ISP tracking are unlikely to have practical access to sophisticated Zero Trust infrastructure. Smaller organizations lacking resources to implement comprehensive Zero Trust systems will likely continue relying on VPNs as a practical, cost-effective security tool. The key insight is that VPNs remain valuable tools when deployed appropriately with realistic understanding of their capabilities and limitations, but organizations seeking to address comprehensive modern security threats should consider how Zero Trust architectures can supplement or replace traditional VPN-based access models.
The Bottom Line on VPN Security
The answer to whether VPNs are safe requires significant nuance and qualification, as VPNs provide genuine security and privacy protections in specific contexts while simultaneously presenting vulnerabilities that undermine their effectiveness as comprehensive security solutions. VPNs are genuinely useful for protecting against local network eavesdropping on public Wi-Fi, masking IP addresses from websites and ISPs, preventing ISP tracking of browsing activities, and protecting against certain categories of targeted attacks that rely on knowing a user’s location or identifying information. When deployed with proper configuration, rigorous testing for leaks, careful provider selection emphasizing transparency and security practices, and integration within a broader layered security approach, VPNs meaningfully reduce certain categories of security risk.
However, VPNs are decidedly not safe when users adopt them based on marketing claims of complete anonymity or total protection, select providers based on price rather than security reputation, fail to verify that their chosen VPN actually prevents data leakage, or rely on a VPN as a complete security solution without implementing additional protective measures. VPNs cannot protect against phishing, malware, credential compromise, social engineering, or security breaches resulting from user action. VPNs operated by unscrupulous providers, particularly free VPN services, frequently collect and monetize user data, distribute malware, or serve as surveillance tools, making them substantially more dangerous than beneficial. VPNs suffer from fundamental architectural limitations including reliance on provider trustworthiness, vulnerability to man-in-the-middle attacks within VPN infrastructure, and inability to protect data beyond the exit node where data leaves the encrypted tunnel.
The safest approach to VPN use involves first understanding what specific security threats a VPN is actually designed to address, second carefully selecting a reputable provider with demonstrated commitment to security and privacy, third properly configuring the VPN with critical security features enabled, and fourth implementing VPN as one component of comprehensive security rather than a standalone protection mechanism. Users should recognize that marketing claims about VPN capabilities frequently exceed technical reality, that vendor claims require independent verification, and that the most reputable VPN providers make modest and specific claims about protection rather than sweeping promises of complete anonymity or universal security. For individuals concerned with privacy on public Wi-Fi and protecting against ISP surveillance, carefully selected quality VPN services deployed with proper configuration provide meaningful security improvements. For organizations seeking comprehensive protection against modern cyber threats, Zero Trust architectures supplementing or replacing traditional VPN approaches offer superior security postures more aligned with contemporary threat landscapes. The fundamental principle is that VPN safety depends entirely on context, provider selection, implementation quality, user understanding, and integration with complementary security measures, requiring sophisticated judgment rather than simple yes-or-no conclusions.
Protect Your Digital Life with Activate Security
Get 14 powerful security tools in one comprehensive suite. VPN, antivirus, password manager, dark web monitoring, and more.
Get Protected Now
