> They advertise it as a free VPN but it's merely a proxy.

What's the difference when you're accessing it through a browser?

> I'm fine with this kind of stuff as long as people are aware it doesn't offer the same connectivity as a full paid VPN.

Are you talking about it not reaching out and affecting other programs, or is there a restriction within the browser?

▲

corranh 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the Firefox case, no difference. It doesn’t encrypt traffic from your device outside of Firefox but for whatever you do inside of Firefox it’s == VPN.

▲

pogue 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In Opera, with their "VPN" it only affects traffic within the browser and it sounds like that's the same thing Firefox will offer.

A proxy isn't as secure as a full VPN. I had previously read a really good article on it but I hunted and hunted but couldn't find it.

This explains it well enough though:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Opera-browser-with-built-in-VPN-a-g...

However, reading the write up from Opera it's actually pretty decent tech that they've had audited by a third party and the whole nine:

Why browsing with Opera’s VPN is safer https://blogs.opera.com/security/2025/07/opera-vpn-is-safe/

Hopefully no one will start with the whole "they're Chinese owned" argument. If anybody is still on that whole trip, see this (and go watch SomeOrdinaryGamer's video on the subject) but in short it's really nothing to worry about.

Debunking misinformation about Opera’s browsers https://blogs.opera.com/security/2023/07/debunking-spyware-m...

▲

Dylan16807 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> it only affects traffic within the browser

Yes because it's VPN for the browser. I can do the same kind of targeting with most VPN software. Applying it to specific programs doesn't make it stop being a VPN.

> This explains it well enough though:

Which answer? The dumb bot that contradicts itself? The first human answer says it is a VPN. Though that "cyber security expert" is also not someone I would trust since they seem to think AES 128 versus 256 is actually an important difference.

The first human "no" says it's not encrypted and I don't believe that for a second.

To say more about the bot answer, it basically repeats three times that only Opera traffic goes through the VPN as its main reason. And then it says it "doesn't offer split tunneling". Come on... The rest of the answer isn't much more grounded in reality.

▲

aragilar 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Is an SSH jump server a VPN (or forwarding a port from another machine at VPN)? I'd suggest neither are because it's connection-based rather than setting up a network (with routing etc). Absent a network, it's a proxy (which can be used like some deployments of a VPN).

	▲	gzread 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Really none of these VPNs are VPNs either since they don't establish a virtual private network. They are just tunnels for your internet access. Tailscale is actual VPN software. It simulates a private network.
	▲	Dylan16807 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I see your point, but I think that might label many uses of wireguard in tailscale "not a VPN" because they use imaginary network devices that only exist inside the tailscale process. Saying that would feel very wrong. On the other hand if process internals can be the deciding factor, then optimizing the code one way or the other could change whether a system is "VPN" or "not a VPN" even though it looks exactly the same from the outside. That doesn't feel great either. And do we even know if Opera uses internal network addresses for its "VPN"? I think I'm willing to say that routing all internet traffic from a program through a tunnel can be called either a VPN or a proxy.

▲

dyauspitr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It comes down to encryption. Proxies aren’t usually encrypted, I don’t know what it does in opera or Firefox’s case.