Why isn't VPN cascading with two separate providers more commonly discussed?

Given that one of the primary reasons people use a VPN is for no logging, why isn’t the idea of cascading connections with two separate VPN providers discussed more often? While trusting a single provider might seem redundant, are there other drawbacks apart from speed?

Briley said:
[deleted]

I’ll have to watch it later. What’s the main use case for consumer-level VPNs?

Nari said:

Briley said:
[deleted]

I’ll have to watch it later. What’s the main use case for consumer-level VPNs?

[deleted]

Briley said:

Nari said:
Briley said:
[deleted]

I’ll have to watch it later. What’s the main use case for consumer-level VPNs?

[deleted]

All the examples you mentioned seem risky if the data is leaked or logged. It’s surprising cascading between two separate VPN providers isn’t more common unless there’s an obvious drawback. Relying on a single company seems like a weak link.

@Nari
That’s why onion networks exist. The main issue with using two VPNs is if you don’t trust one of them, why would you trust the other? They could collude to log your data. With onion networks, multiple parties must collude to compromise your privacy.

@Nari
[deleted]

Briley said:
@Nari
[deleted]

I’m not sure where you are, but copyright holders often sue individuals over IP leaks for significant amounts. I agree that the risks you’ve listed are low, but repressive governments should also be a consideration. I just thought setting it up in a VM would be simple and would be more common. I’m wondering if there’s a security risk that’s not commonly noted.

Nari said:

Briley said:
[deleted]

I’ll have to watch it later. What’s the main use case for consumer-level VPNs?

Hiding your IP address.

If you don’t trust either VPN individually, how does cascading them improve your security? It takes a little more effort for investigators, but authorities can still subpoena multiple providers. Once you’re a target, they’re unlikely to stop just because you’ve used two VPNs.

@Ripley
That’s true. I wasn’t necessarily thinking of authorities as much as I was concerned about bad actors trying to steal or sell information. I just want to avoid being the easiest target.

Cascading VPNs can be complicated but it’s possible. It’s more common to use an SDWAN appliance where devices on the LAN run their own VPN clients for various reasons. An SDWAN can be used for site-to-site access or multi-WAN environments where load balancing is essential.

@Ariel
There are also costs involved, which can be prohibitive for the average user.

Ariel said:
@Ariel
There are also costs involved, which can be prohibitive for the average user.

I understand that it’s costly. I’m interested in learning more about SDWAN. But why not run VPNs on a host and via a VM? I haven’t had the chance to experiment, but I’m considering ways to undermine trust in any single VPN provider. I’m not trying to evade the FBI.

@Nari
It can get messy regarding session management. Much depends on your scale. Dedicating hardware to a VM can be manageable, but daisy-chaining them on the same hardware could complicate matters. Having a single VPN on your edge appliance while connecting clients on LAN to different VPNs achieves similar results.

I have two VPNs, but I can’t use them simultaneously and I wouldn’t need to. One is better for streaming while the other is hit or miss depending on the region. If I needed high levels of anonymity, like a journalist dealing with sensitive issues, I’d choose TOR instead.