X-VPN presents a complex safety profile that requires nuanced examination across multiple dimensions of security and privacy infrastructure. Based on extensive testing and documentation, X-VPN demonstrates both notable strengths in certain privacy protections and legitimate concerns regarding transparency, performance consistency, and platform-specific vulnerabilities. The service’s safety ultimately depends on the specific use case, platform, and the user’s risk tolerance regarding the company’s Hong Kong-based operations and commitment to independent security verification.
Privacy Architecture and Data Collection Practices
No-Logs Policy and Data Retention
The foundation of X-VPN’s privacy claims rests on its stated no-logs policy, which forms the basis for its marketing messaging and user trust proposition. According to X-VPN’s official privacy documentation, the service explicitly commits to not storing users’ browsing history, traffic data, or DNS queries. The company further claims not to retain IP addresses—neither users’ original IP addresses nor the server IP addresses to which users connect. This represents a fundamental privacy commitment that aligns with industry standards established by leading VPN providers.
However, the practical implementation of this no-logs policy reveals notable complexity in how X-VPN handles user data. While X-VPN maintains that it does not store core privacy-sensitive information, the company does collect and retain certain operational data on a temporary basis. Specifically, when users connect to X-VPN’s services, the company records connection timestamps, the protocol chosen, network type information, error reports, and app interactions. These data points are retained for less than forty-eight hours before automatic and permanent deletion, according to X-VPN’s published policy. This approach reflects a balance between operational necessity and privacy protection, as such data enables the service to troubleshoot connection issues and improve service quality without maintaining permanent records that could compromise user privacy.
The critical distinction between X-VPN’s data collection and more aggressive data practices employed by other services lies in what information is excluded from collection and retention. X-VPN explicitly does not collect browsing history, DNS queries, or the websites users visit, which represents the most sensitive categories of personal data from a privacy perspective. This limitation of collection scope to connection metadata rather than content or destination data significantly reduces privacy risk compared to logging-intensive services.
Technical Implementation of No-Logs Infrastructure
Beyond stated policy, X-VPN’s no-logs commitment gains substantial credibility through its deployment of RAM-only server infrastructure. This technical architecture represents one of the most effective implementations of privacy-by-design principles currently available in the VPN industry. RAM-only servers operate fundamentally differently from traditional server infrastructure that relies on persistent storage devices such as hard drives or solid-state drives. All data passing through RAM-only servers exists exclusively in volatile memory that is automatically cleared upon server reboot or power loss. This means that even if a government agency were to physically seize an X-VPN server, no user data could be recovered through forensic analysis because the physical impossibility of data persistence creates an absolute technical barrier to data extraction.
The operational mechanics of this system work as follows: every time an X-VPN server restarts, it downloads a fresh, read-only operating system image from secure remote locations using a process called PXE booting. The server loads this operating system and all associated services directly into RAM, where they operate entirely within temporary memory. No files are ever written to permanent storage during normal operation. This architecture ensures that even if X-VPN administrators wanted to retain user data for longer periods, the technical infrastructure would not support such retention. The implementation essentially makes X-VPN’s no-logs policy impossible to violate—it is enforced by hardware design rather than relying solely on corporate policy compliance.
This technical approach provides substantially greater assurance than policies alone. While many VPN providers claim no-logs policies, some still operate traditional servers with persistent storage that theoretically could be exploited to retain data against company policy or under government pressure. X-VPN’s RAM-only infrastructure eliminates this vulnerability entirely.
Session Key Rotation and Encryption Protocol
X-VPN implements session key rotation on a per-connection basis, meaning that encryption keys are regenerated with each new VPN connection. This approach prevents the possibility of key reuse across multiple sessions, which would create a security vulnerability if any single key were ever compromised. Even if an attacker managed to obtain a user’s encryption key for one session, that key would be rendered useless for accessing traffic from any other session because X-VPN generates new keys upon every reconnection.
The encryption methodology itself employs TLS-based tunnel encryption utilizing AES-GCM cipher suites combined with Elliptic-Curve Diffie–Hellman Ephemeral (ECDHE) key exchange protocols. This combination of technologies provides both confidentiality and integrity protection for user traffic, while the ephemeral nature of the key exchange ensures forward secrecy. Forward secrecy is a critical security property that guarantees that even if an attacker were to compromise X-VPN’s long-term keys, previously captured encrypted traffic could not be decrypted retroactively.
The HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF) further strengthens X-VPN’s encryption implementation by ensuring that distinct encryption and authentication keys are derived from initial shared secrets. This process involves extracting pseudorandom key material via HMAC and then expanding that material into context-specific keys, creating multiple layers of cryptographic derivation that make attacks against the key material substantially more difficult.
Data Collection for Account Management and Support
Beyond the core privacy protections, X-VPN collects certain categories of data that are necessary for service operation but raise important transparency considerations. The company collects email addresses when users choose to create X-VPN accounts, though users are not required to provide real email addresses and can register with fictional addresses if desired. This flexibility represents a privacy-conscious approach to account creation, though it does create the necessity for the company to store at least some email-like identifier for account recovery and service management purposes.
Payment information represents another category of collected data. X-VPN maintains records of users’ subscription status, payment methods, subscribed packages, subscription start dates, and transaction identification numbers. However, critically, X-VPN explicitly states it does not store actual credit card data—only metadata about the transaction. This approach limits the scope of sensitive financial data that could potentially be exposed if X-VPN’s systems were compromised.
Additionally, X-VPN collects crash logs and error reports solely for analysis and debugging purposes, allowing the company to identify and resolve technical issues affecting users. These technical logs represent standard practice across software services and do not inherently create privacy risks if the company maintains appropriate access controls and data minimization practices.
Encryption Standards and Protocol Transparency
Encryption Strength and Standards
X-VPN’s deployment of AES-256 encryption represents the current industry standard for data protection and reflects the same encryption methodology used by banking institutions and government agencies for protecting classified information. AES-256 uses a 256-bit key length with complex encryption rounds that provide robust protection against cryptographic attacks even in the face of advances in computing technology. From a pure cryptographic standpoint, AES-256 remains unbroken and no practical attacks against it have been successfully demonstrated in peer-reviewed research.
The encryption implementation within X-VPN combines AES-256 with modern cipher suites specifically AES-GCM, which provides authenticated encryption that protects both confidentiality and integrity of data. This authenticated encryption approach is superior to older encryption methods that protected only confidentiality because authenticated encryption can detect if encrypted data has been tampered with or altered in transit.
Protocol Transparency Concerns
However, X-VPN’s approach to protocol transparency has generated legitimate criticism in the security community. Early versions of X-VPN referred to its supported protocols using letter designations—Protocol A, Protocol B, and so forth—rather than using standard protocol names. This obscure naming convention made it impossible for users to understand which specific VPN protocols they were actually using and therefore difficult to assess the security properties of their connections independently. Security professionals and users generally consider transparency about cryptographic protocols to be essential because it allows independent verification of security claims and enables auditing by the global security community.
In response to this criticism, X-VPN has evolved its protocol offerings to include well-known, auditable protocols. The service now explicitly supports OpenVPN, WireGuard, and a proprietary protocol called Everest. This represents substantial improvement because both OpenVPN and WireGuard are open-source protocols that have undergone extensive peer review and security auditing. OpenVPN has been thoroughly audited for over two decades and contains no known critical vulnerabilities, while WireGuard, though newer, uses modern cryptography and contains only approximately 4,000 lines of code, making it substantially easier to audit than larger, more complex protocols.
The Everest Protocol deserves specific mention as X-VPN’s proprietary solution. Everest employs AES-256 encryption and supports multiple transmission protocols including UDP, TCP, HTTP, and TLS. The protocol includes obfuscation technology designed to prevent ISP detection and blocking, making it particularly useful for users in countries with internet censorship. X-VPN explains that Everest remains proprietary rather than open-source because publicizing the protocol specifications would enable censors to reverse-engineer and block it more effectively. This represents a security-through-obscurity trade-off that prioritizes functionality in restricted environments over community auditing. While this approach is defensible in specific contexts, it does reduce transparency compared to open-source alternatives.
Security Performance and Leak Test Results
DNS Leak Testing
X-VPN has demonstrated robust performance in DNS leak testing, which represents one of the most critical security vulnerabilities for VPN services. A DNS leak occurs when DNS requests bypass the VPN’s encrypted tunnel and are routed through an ISP’s DNS servers instead, potentially exposing browsing history to the ISP and third parties monitoring DNS traffic. Independent testing conducted by Security.org revealed that X-VPN successfully prevented DNS leaks, with DNS queries properly routing through X-VPN’s private DNS infrastructure rather than leaking to ISP servers. X-VPN’s private DNS implementation ensures that DNS lookups occur within the encrypted VPN tunnel and never reach third-party DNS providers.
This DNS leak prevention appears to function even when users are in hostile network environments. X-VPN’s private DNS infrastructure handles domain resolution internally using RAM-only infrastructure that is immediately cleared after use, ensuring that no permanent record of DNS queries persists. This implementation represents best practices for DNS privacy protection.
WebRTC Leak Protection
WebRTC (Web Real-Time Communication) leaks represent another critical vulnerability category where browser WebRTC features can inadvertently expose users’ real IP addresses even when a VPN is connected. This occurs because WebRTC implementations may bypass the VPN tunnel to gather diagnostic information about network interfaces, inadvertently revealing the user’s actual IP address. Testing by Security.org found that X-VPN successfully prevented WebRTC leaks, with no real IP address exposure detected during testing.
IP Address Leak Prevention
Independent testing has confirmed that X-VPN effectively masks users’ real IP addresses and replaces them with X-VPN server IP addresses, preventing third parties from identifying users’ actual geographic locations or ISPs. This core function represents the fundamental purpose of a VPN service, and X-VPN’s consistent performance in this area suggests that the underlying VPN tunneling implementation is sound.
Speed and Performance Characteristics
Download and Upload Speed Performance
X-VPN’s speed performance represents one of the service’s more documented weaknesses. Independent testing conducted by Security.org measured X-VPN’s performance across multiple server locations and found significant speed degradation compared to baseline internet speeds without VPN. In three separate tests, X-VPN consistently reduced download speeds by between 40-60%, which exceeds the generally acceptable threshold for VPN performance impact. Upload speeds experienced particularly severe degradation, with average upload speeds reduced from approximately 40 Mbps baseline to approximately 3-4 Mbps when connected to X-VPN.
Broader testing conducted by Comparitech across multiple geographic regions found an average download speed of 35 Mbps across all tested X-VPN servers. This overall average masked significant regional variation, with North America averaging 44.3 Mbps download speed, Europe averaging 49.6 Mbps, and Asia averaging only 11.6 Mbps download speed. The particularly poor performance in Asia suggests potential infrastructure bottlenecks or suboptimal server placement in that region.
These speed limitations create practical implications for certain use cases. Users attempting to stream video content or engage in bandwidth-intensive activities may experience buffering or reduced quality when connected to X-VPN. However, the service does perform adequately for general web browsing and email activities.
Recent Infrastructure Expansion
X-VPN has undertaken significant infrastructure expansion efforts that may improve future performance. In September 2025, the company announced expansion of its European server network, adding thirteen new country locations and increasing total coverage to forty-four countries across Europe. The expansion included servers in diverse locations including Malta, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and multiple other territories. This European expansion reflects X-VPN’s commitment to distributing server load across more geographic locations, which should help reduce latency and improve performance for European users by providing more localized connection options.
The company operates over ten thousand VPN servers across eighty or more countries globally, providing substantial geographic diversity for user connections. This large server footprint should theoretically enable users to select servers geographically close to their location, which would minimize latency and improve performance. However, the actual performance results suggest that server capacity may not be uniformly distributed or optimized across all regions.
Platform-Specific Vulnerabilities
Blind In/On-Path Attack Vulnerability on Android
A significant security vulnerability affecting X-VPN emerged in 2025 when academic researchers identified that X-VPN for Android may be exposed to Blind In/On-Path attacks, a sophisticated attack technique that can disrupt VPN connections or inject false information into encrypted traffic. This vulnerability does not originate from flaws in X-VPN’s code specifically but rather stems from Android’s operating system architecture and how the VPN Service API implements virtual network interfaces.
The technical mechanism of this vulnerability centers on Android’s failure to enable strict Reverse Path Filtering (RPF). Reverse Path Filtering is a security feature where the operating system verifies that incoming packets come from valid source addresses. When strict RPF is disabled—as it is by default on Android—the system does not verify whether incoming packets legitimately came from the network interface they arrived on. This creates a condition where attackers connected to the same local network (such as public Wi-Fi) can send spoofed packets designed to appear as though they are legitimate traffic for the VPN’s virtual network interface.
When these spoofed packets reach the device, Android forwards them through to the VPN virtual network interface (called “Tun”) rather than dropping them as invalid. This forwarding behavior creates a condition where the attacker can infer the state of the device’s network interface and, under certain conditions, manipulate or disrupt the VPN connection. X-VPN conducted extensive investigation of this vulnerability and determined that the same risk affects multiple major VPN providers including ExpressVPN, NordVPN, Surfshark, Norton VPN, and Proton VPN.
This finding is crucial to understanding the scope of the vulnerability—it is not unique to X-VPN but rather represents a systemic platform-level issue affecting all VPN services on Android due to Android’s design decisions. X-VPN cannot fundamentally resolve this issue at the application layer because VPN applications on Android do not have the necessary permissions to modify Android kernel-level settings like Reverse Path Filtering.
In response to this vulnerability, X-VPN took several mitigation steps including reporting the issue to Google through responsible disclosure procedures, implementing protective measures on Linux platforms (where user root privileges enable kernel parameter adjustments), and exploring non-root-based mitigation strategies on Android. However, the company acknowledged that these application-layer mitigations do not constitute a fundamental fix and may introduce connection instability or denial-of-service vulnerabilities if implemented overly aggressively.
X-VPN’s investigation found that macOS, iOS, and Windows do not exhibit the same exploitable response patterns observed on Android, suggesting these platforms are not vulnerable to this particular attack vector. This platform-specific nature means that users on Apple devices and Windows computers do not face this particular security concern from X-VPN.
Platform Feature Inconsistencies
Beyond the Blind In/On-Path vulnerability, X-VPN exhibits inconsistent feature availability across different platforms, which creates usability and security concerns. Split tunneling functionality, which allows users to specify certain applications that bypass the VPN while others remain protected, is available on Windows but not on macOS. Kill Switch functionality, which is a critical security feature that disconnects internet traffic when the VPN connection drops unexpectedly, is available on iPad but notably absent from the Windows application despite being mentioned in the company’s marketing materials. These inconsistencies suggest that X-VPN’s cross-platform development may not be fully coordinated or that resources are not equally distributed across all supported platforms.
Transparency, Audits, and Accountability
Lack of Independent Third-Party Audits
As of late 2025, X-VPN has not completed an independent third-party security audit of its no-logs policy, representing a significant limitation in verification of its privacy claims. While X-VPN maintains that a third-party audit is underway, the results are not yet publicly available. This stands in contrast to leading VPN providers such as NordVPN, which has undergone multiple independent audits of its privacy policy by PricewaterhouseCoopers Switzerland and published the results publicly. Independent audits by external security firms provide substantially greater credibility than company statements about privacy practices because they involve external verification by entities with no financial interest in endorsing the company’s claims.
Transparency Record
X-VPN has maintained a formal record of government and legal data requests since 2017, and according to company statements, this record shows that X-VPN has received over 239,000 legal or copyright data requests and 65+ law enforcement requests, yet has never disclosed user data in response to any of these requests. The company also maintains a warrant canary, a practice where a company regularly publishes a statement confirming that it has not received secret government demands for user data. If X-VPN were to receive such a secret demand that it was legally prohibited from discussing publicly, it would allow the warrant canary to expire as a signal to users.
This transparency record is more substantial than the complete silence on government requests maintained by many other VPN providers. However, the record requires careful interpretation—it reflects requests that X-VPN received and the company’s claimed response, but it does not constitute independent verification. The company could theoretically issue false reports about requests received or falsely claim they did not disclose data. This is why independent audits of both the technical infrastructure and company policies would provide much greater verification.
Ownership and Jurisdiction Concerns
X-VPN is operated by Lightninglink Networks PTE. Ltd., a company registered in Singapore. The company’s publicly disclosed director is Li Jin, a Chinese citizen with a Sichuan Province address, according to records uncovered in research investigations. This ownership structure creates potential privacy and security concerns given the different legal and regulatory environments in Singapore, China, and other jurisdictions.
Singapore, where X-VPN’s legal entity is based, operates under a common law legal system with developed privacy protections and is not formally part of international intelligence-sharing alliances such as the 5-9-14 Eyes network. This jurisdictional choice provides some protection against routine intelligence sharing that might otherwise expose user data. However, the presence of a Chinese national as the company director, combined with the company’s history of operations in Asia, has raised concerns among some security researchers about whether the company might be subject to influence from Chinese government authorities.
An investigation by researchers found that X-VPN is part of “Family C” of VPN applications, a category that includes multiple applications sharing some operational characteristics and Hong Kong-based corporate structure. However, unlike some other Family C applications, X-VPN maintained distinct corporate identity and infrastructure from the other applications in this category. The research also found that other major VPN applications including those from “Family A” (traced to Chinese company Qihoo 360, which was sanctioned by the U.S. government for ties to the People’s Liberation Army) exhibited much more severe concerns regarding ownership transparency and potential for data misuse.
User Experience and Reliability
Connection Stability Issues
Multiple independent reviewers have reported intermittent connection stability problems with X-VPN. Reviewers noted that connections would occasionally drop unexpectedly, requiring users to manually reconnect to restore the VPN tunnel. This instability creates security risks because if users do not notice the disconnection, they may briefly transmit unencrypted traffic while believing they remain protected by the VPN. However, X-VPN does provide Kill Switch functionality that can automatically disconnect internet traffic when the VPN connection drops, mitigating this risk for users who enable the feature.
Application Interface and User Documentation
X-VPN’s website has been criticized by reviewers as uninformative and containing primarily marketing statements rather than technical documentation about how the service operates. Users seeking detailed information about VPN protocols, security features, or configuration options often report difficulty finding this information on X-VPN’s official website. This lack of clear technical documentation makes it challenging for security-conscious users to thoroughly evaluate X-VPN’s claims or understand how to optimally configure the service for their specific security needs.
The application interfaces themselves have received mixed reviews. Some users report that the applications are simple and intuitive to use, while others have experienced issues with navigating features or understanding which protocol options to select from among the available choices.
Streaming Service Access
X-VPN performs exceptionally well in one specific use case—bypassing geographic restrictions on streaming services. The service includes dedicated streaming servers optimized for accessing Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, BBC iPlayer, Hulu, Disney+, and other major streaming platforms. Testing confirmed that X-VPN successfully unblocked all of these streaming services, making it a capable solution for users seeking to access region-restricted content. The company maintains detailed documentation about which server locations to use for specific streaming services, demonstrating that the streaming functionality receives active development attention.
Comparative Safety Assessment
Comparison with Leading VPN Providers
To properly contextualize X-VPN’s safety profile, comparison with established market leaders provides useful perspective. NordVPN, one of the most recommended VPN services, operates in Panama (a privacy-friendly jurisdiction outside intelligence-sharing agreements), employs similar AES-256 encryption, maintains RAM-only servers, offers Kill Switch and DNS leak protection, and has undergone independent security audits. NordVPN also provides additional security features such as Double VPN encryption (chaining connections through multiple servers) and CyberSec features for blocking ads and malware, features not present in X-VPN’s current offering.
Proton VPN, another leading provider, similarly uses AES-256 encryption, operates from Switzerland (another privacy-friendly jurisdiction), and conducts annual third-party audits of its no-logs policy by independent security firm Securitum. These audits are published publicly and confirm that Proton VPN does not retain logs or engage in practices that compromise privacy. Proton VPN’s business model relies heavily on trust and transparency, which is reflected in the company’s commitment to open-source applications and regular independent verification.
Compared to these established leaders, X-VPN offers comparable encryption standards, RAM-only server infrastructure, and no-logs policies, but falls behind in independent verification and proven track record. X-VPN’s safety profile is stronger than free VPN services, many of which log user data, inject malware, or sell user information to third parties, but weaker than premium services with established transparency practices and multiple independent security certifications.
Speed and Performance Comparison
X-VPN’s speed performance lags behind several competitors. Testing shows that ProtonVPN records only approximately 8% download speed degradation, substantially better than X-VPN’s 40-60% degradation. NordVPN similarly provides superior speed performance. For users where VPN speed is a primary concern, X-VPN represents a less optimal choice than faster-performing alternatives.
Pricing and Value Proposition
X-VPN’s pricing of $5.95 to $11.99 per month positions the service at the premium end of the market, comparable to ExpressVPN and NordVPN pricing despite X-VPN having less extensive development and verification history. This pricing suggests that users are primarily paying for X-VPN’s large server network and streaming capability rather than for enhanced security or privacy features that justify the premium cost.
Recent Developments and Company Response to Security Issues
Proactive Security Response
X-VPN’s response to the Blind In/On-Path vulnerability demonstrates increasingly mature security practices. Rather than dismissing the vulnerability or attempting to blame researchers, X-VPN immediately initiated investigation, conducted testing across multiple platforms, and submitted vulnerability information to Google through responsible disclosure procedures. The company published detailed technical explanations of the vulnerability, its scope, and mitigation efforts, demonstrating transparency about security limitations. This response pattern contrasts sharply with less mature VPN companies that might deny vulnerabilities or attempt to suppress information.
Active Development and Expansion
X-VPN’s expansion of its European server network in September 2025 and continued addition of new protocols and features demonstrate active ongoing development rather than stagnation. The company’s implementation of the Everest Protocol specifically addresses use cases in censorship-heavy regions where standard protocols might be blocked, showing that development is responsive to user needs.
Bug Bounty Program and Community Engagement
X-VPN maintains a bug bounty program that incentivizes security researchers to responsibly report vulnerabilities rather than exploiting them. This represents a positive sign of commitment to security, though the company has not published detailed information about bounty amounts or the quantity of vulnerabilities reported and resolved through this program.
Data Sovereignty and Regulatory Compliance
GDPR and Data Protection Compliance
X-VPN’s privacy policy explicitly addresses GDPR compliance, indicating that data processing occurs on lawful bases including contractual obligation fulfillment and legitimate business interests. Users have rights to access, transfer, correct, delete, or object to processing of their personal data by contacting X-VPN’s support email. The company states it will respond to such requests within forty-five days, with potential extension to ninety days if additional time is needed.
Regional Variations and Jurisdiction-Specific Policies
X-VPN’s privacy policy specifically addresses the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Nevada privacy laws, indicating that X-VPN recognizes diverse regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions. The company commits not to deny services, charge different prices, or provide different service quality based on users’ exercise of their privacy rights under these laws.
Overall Safety Assessment
Strengths
X-VPN’s safety profile includes several significant strengths. The service implements industry-standard AES-256 encryption with modern cryptographic practices including TLS-based tunnel encryption, ephemeral key exchange, and forward secrecy. The deployment of RAM-only servers creates genuine technical barriers to data retention that make the no-logs policy impossible to violate. X-VPN successfully prevents DNS leaks, WebRTC leaks, and IP address exposure, performing the core VPN function effectively. The service operates across eighty-plus countries with over ten thousand servers, providing geographic diversity. Private DNS implementation ensures that DNS queries do not leak to ISP servers. Kill Switch functionality protects against accidental data exposure during connection drops. The service provides 4.7 out of 5 star ratings from over five hundred thousand App Store users, suggesting general user satisfaction with functionality and ease of use.
Weaknesses
X-VPN’s weaknesses include significant performance limitations with 40-60% speed degradation and particularly poor Asian server performance. Platform-specific vulnerabilities affect Android users through Blind In/On-Path attack exposure, though this represents a platform-level issue affecting multiple VPN services. The lack of independent third-party security audits limits verification of no-logs policy claims compared to competitors who publish audit results. Ownership structure involving Chinese national director and Hong Kong operations creates transparency concerns despite Singapore legal entity registration. Inconsistent feature availability across platforms (missing Kill Switch on Windows desktop despite being marketed, split tunneling missing on macOS) suggests incomplete platform parity. Past use of proprietary mystery protocols (now partially remedied through WireGuard and OpenVPN support) demonstrated initial transparency issues. Documentation and website information lacks technical depth for advanced users. Connection stability problems requiring manual reconnection create security risks if users do not notice and rely on Kill Switch mitigation.
Verdict
X-VPN represents a moderately safe VPN service suitable for users with general privacy needs and streaming requirements, but with important caveats and limitations. The service provides legitimate privacy protections through RAM-only infrastructure and no-logs policies, implements standard encryption correctly, and performs core VPN functions such as IP masking and DNS leak prevention effectively. However, X-VPN should not be considered the optimal choice for users with advanced security requirements, users in bandwidth-intensive activities, or users for whom verified independent security audit results would be important decision factors.
Users who prefer established providers with published independent audits, superior speed performance, and longer operational track records may find services such as NordVPN or Proton VPN to be more appropriate choices. Conversely, users who prioritize large server networks, streaming capability, and acceptable-though-not-optimal security at moderate pricing may find X-VPN’s value proposition acceptable. The service’s RAM-only infrastructure and private DNS implementation provide genuine technical privacy protections that exceed many competitors, particularly in the free VPN market segment where privacy risks are substantially greater.
The Verdict on X VPN’s Safety
The question “Is X-VPN Safe?” does not admit a simple yes or no answer. X-VPN implements legitimate privacy and security measures that protect against many common threats including ISP snooping, IP tracking, and DNS hijacking. The RAM-only server infrastructure creates genuine technical protections that make the no-logs policy impossible to violate. However, X-VPN’s safety profile has notable limitations including performance issues, platform-specific vulnerabilities, lack of independent verification, and organizational transparency concerns. Users must evaluate whether X-VPN’s particular combination of strengths and weaknesses aligns with their specific threat model and use case requirements.
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
