this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
1016 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

73423 readers
4389 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
1016
UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill (www.birminghammail.co.uk)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
337 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it be detected via initial connection only? WG does not send packets while connected, does it?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago

update: I think not only the handshake packets contain a recognizable pattern. look at "Subsequent Messages: Exchange of Data Packets"

https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/

especially if the receiver/sender_index and the counter are what I think they are.

also have a look at this page: https://www.wireguard.com/known-limitations/

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago

now that you say, I think I remember reading something like this earlier