Jump to content
TorGuard

Leaderboard

  1. Support

    Support

    Administrators


    • Points

      9

    • Content Count

      2,177


  2. 117211_1511348143

    117211_1511348143

    Members


    • Points

      3

    • Content Count

      13


  3. RyDze

    RyDze

    Members


    • Points

      3

    • Content Count

      14


  4. kurisu

    kurisu

    Members


    • Points

      3

    • Content Count

      23



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/17/2018 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    Hello everyone We hadn't seen this thread, we do not believe in a warrant canary here at TG - there are no logs on any TG servers, we have started migrating to volatile RAM-based servers but in any case your data does not hit our HD's in the first place, this migration, of course, will take some time but we have started the process - there is no identifying info that can be collected, regardless of the amount of force applied with TG. Regards
  2. 1 point
    Check out this TG openVPN install guide on an Asus with Merlin: https://x3mtek.com/torguard-openvpn-2-4-client-setup-for-asuswrt-merlin-firmware/
  3. 1 point
    There is no eta at the minute but i can assure you they are working on it. Regards
  4. 1 point
    so apart from the rare disconnect, ive never had a problem with torguard. I connect via a custom config through chicago and all was business as usual. I went afk to watch some netflix and after a bit i decided to stream some games (from the pc running the vpn) and the client on my tv told me i was offline. thought it was odd so came to look at my PC, and the vpn says WAIT. I disconnected and tried to reconnect. WAIT. I tried to dump the custom config and just connect to cookie cutter chicago - WAIT. I tried a different route (in this case New York) and all was fine. Can only surmise chicago is down/having problems atm?
  5. 1 point
    My Guess is Atlanta is a Cogent Service, I once Streamed IPTV from a Seller that used Cogent Network because they are cheap but it wasn't very reliable.
  6. 1 point
    Try a different server perhaps or use the client and see if theres any differences. The client uses openvpn too. Ive found some servers are bad for me, see your latency of 200ms? ALSO TRY TCP...
  7. 1 point
    I just need the Tap Version not the installer, I use Open VPN. I'll google it.
  8. 1 point
    You need to re run the installer, choose reinstall TAP adapter, choose 9.9. I'm not sure what versions are offered now, but yeah, choose the older one. TORGUARD PLEASE PUT A NOTE IN YOUR PROGRAM TO TRY 9.9 etc IF THERE ARE ISSUES.
  9. 1 point
    Pretty much the same thing here. Some servers just plain refuse to connect period. Others you have to hammer many times to get a connection. Forget the ticket, it's a system wide problem as evidenced by multiple reports here. I have the same problem from from multiple sites, different computers, different carriers. I don't understand. What happened and why is taking so long to fix it?
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    Well that worked! o.0 Been using this vpn for months and I have been using email and and a password that was given to me! so wierd I must be going crazy!
  12. 1 point
    The username and password used to login to the website and the VPN are different. Please try going to > https://torguard.net/managecredentials.php That link should lead you to the page where you can set it up.
  13. 1 point
    I had similar issues and it was related to using "proxy.torguard.org" because using that uses a POOL of random ip's and after awhile if your torrents become inactive or for whatever reason the proxy ip changes... it causes the connection to "time out" because the tracker is expecting a connection from the initial IP but the proxy ip has changed which causes connectivity issues as the tracker is expecting a connection from the first ip you had but your ip has changed timing out the connection. Rebooting utorrent is a fix but only temporary until the timeout happens again changing the proxy ip causing a disconnection/timeout. The fix for this was to instead use a "specific" proxy IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx instead of proxy.torguard.org which fixes the timeout issue and utorrent stays connected, using a specific ip address makes the connection much more stable!.
  14. 1 point
    When are you going to add command-line options, such as "--disconnect," for Windows and others?
  15. 1 point
    I have been using Torguard now for 2-3 years and it has been working Flawlessly. I use it every single day and I i NEVER experience any significant problems. You are likely Configuring something wrong, if it is not working then you have configured it wrong, i say that because i use socks5 proxy and VPN everyday flawlessly without any problems for years. The forums is not the fastest way to ask for help, if you need support or help configuring something i would suggest going through the proper channels of opening a support ticket or talking to live chat and i am sure they will assist you ASAP! I have gone into live chat a few times over the years for general questions and they always reply to me Very quickly and Professionally. Torguard is a very Professionally run VPN service with good stability/security and the support has always been top notch in my opinion. I have tested other vpn services and Torguard surely rates at the Top. It is a No logs VPN service so 5 eyes? Nothing is logged so no information can be given if asked therefore 5 eyes is of no real concern. 5 eyes can ask for something yes but with No logs they will receive no info so there is no concern. I would suggest asking your question By opening a support ticket or going through live chat.
  16. 1 point
    Hi Mike I would highly suggest you contact our support desk https://torguard.net/submitticket.php Maybe we can log in and have a look at what's going on. Regards
  17. 1 point
    Hi, did you upgrade from a much older build by chance? Can I ask that you do the following so we can make sure you start fresh? 1) Go to more settings --> general tab --> click "restore defaults" and then hit save (if you can't do this move to the next step) 2) Delete the Torguard app from the applications folder and empty your trash 3) Remove this folder: /users/user/Library/Application Support/VPNetworkLLC/TorGuard 4) Flush DNS >> https://torguard.net/knowledgebase.php?action=displayarticle&catid=71&id=227 5) Reboot 6) Reinstall TG Client latest version here https://torguard.net/downloads.php Let me know how you go.
  18. 1 point
    Stupid captcha when logging in to your account it almost never works, I'm leaving Torguard
  19. 1 point
    Hello, It would be very helpful to give the option to make a quick test to determine which server is the fastest according to your location and the latency to the server. Usually i ping the server , or connect and do a speedtest , but a feature like this would be very helpul Thanks
  20. 1 point
    Good day. I guess this a Feature Request? I think the port-reservation website should let us pick a "pool" (a city) and then suggest a server automatically; even better if it looks at which port we want and then picks a server that doesn't have that port already reserved.Here is why I'd like this: When you connect to a "pool" the VPN client picks a server randomly from that pool. This means that on average, every server in the pool will have the same load - the same number of users using it. However, if 1000 people have reserved ports on Server A, then we can expect that particular server to have, on a bad day, 1000 more people using it, since TorGuard graciously lets us pick which server we connect to (you can "pin" a server in the client, or even multiple ones if you want.) So if I were to want to pick a server for my own port forwards, I'd want the server with the least amount of people already reserving ports on it Because that particular server should be the one with the least load, on average. As it is, I can't really pick any server over any another in the same pool, since they all ping about the same - I can't tell which has the least load. This should also benefit TorGuard, helping to distribute load across servers more evenly. Regards,
  21. 1 point
    Anyconnect worked for me a month ago. The speed was slow, but worked.
  22. 1 point
    Was looking to find the best balanced settings for Torguard providing the most security with only a reasonable hit to throughput but could not find much details online. I decided to run some throughput tests on a few combinations of settings to determine the best option. The tests were done using speedtest.net using the same fixed remote server for all tests. In Torguard using the pin feature, I also fixed the VPN server IP for all tests. Throughput obviously varied based on server/ISP load but not by much. Also any test combinations where the numbers seemed to not make sense, I verified by doing the test again. Fixed Variables - Software Version - v3.90.0 - Used OpenVPN. I did test with OpenConnect with not much difference in speed and from the research so far OpenVPN is a more secure reliable option as of now. - Used UDP. TCP was about 40% slower than UDP and for general PC use losing a few packets has almost no noticeable effect. - Port - 1195 (SHA 256) - All other settings excluding the configuration changes listed below in the test were at default values. - Tests were done in order of security level (low to high) starting with Torguard completely disabled. Test Results Encryption Network Settings DL (Mbps) Loss Torguard Disabled Torguard Disabled 193 0% AES-128-CBC Default 164 15% AES-128-GCM Default 166 16% AES-256-CBC Default 160 20% AES-256-GCM Default 155 24% AES-256-CBC Block Outside DNS = On Name Server = None 163 19% AES-256-GCM Block Outside DNS = On Name Server = None 176 10% AES-256-CBC Block Outside DNS = On Name Server = VPN DNS 161 18% AES-256-GCM Block Outside DNS = On Name Server = VPN DNS 175 11% AES-256-CBC Block Outside DNS = On Name Server = Google 163 17% AES-256-GCM Block Outside DNS = On Name Server = Google 163 18% AES-256-CBC Block Outside DNS = Off Name Server = VPN DNS 164 18% AES-256-GCM Block Outside DNS = Off Name Server = VPN DNS 164 18% Summary -Using AES-256 vs AES-128 showed minor drop in throughput. -Adding the extra layers of security under DNS to prevent DNS resolve leaks had no negative impact on throughput. -Surprisingly after multiple repeat tests AES GCM (more secure) seems to provide better results using some of the DNS settings. Again there are obviously alot of other variables that would have impacted some of the results so they cannot be 100% accurate. It is also a limited test only taking 2 servers in to account but it does give a decent general idea as to what the best balanced options would be. Based on this test, the last configuration (in green) is the most secure option with a low amount of loss in throughput. Hope this helps any questions or corrections let me know.
  23. 1 point
    Has this ever been resolved? Unless I setup port forwarding to every potential server for a particular location I don't see an easy way to setup port forwarding. It would be very helpful if we could setup port forwarding based on LOCATION instead of IP ADDRESS.
  24. 1 point
    This would be awesome 👍 and i hope developer add "tls -crypt " to all port not only port 53
  25. 1 point
    Application specific option. Apparently this was in development....
  26. 1 point
    Yes but didnt get anywhere however after extensive troubleshooting, this is a digital signature issue with ver 1809 of Windows 10, I went back to 1803 and its OK
  27. 1 point
    I would suggest you open a support ticket here https://torguard.net/submitticket.php and explain your problem. Thanks
  28. 1 point
    Hi, Please try using different ports switching between TCP and UDP, if that fails, enable stealth proxy under Settings and recheck to see if that connects. Regards
  29. 1 point
    UPDATE!!! It's the TAP adapter. By default client installs 9.21 tap adapter. I tried the 9.9 version offered in setup and no issues. I don't know why 9.21 is default on Win 7 x64, but it really introduces bad latency when having multiple streams.
  30. 1 point
    support answer was "To be honest, there's nothing to fix here, a WAIT status doesn't indicate a problem with the client, it normally means for some reason you cannot reach the server to connect or your ISP regularly filters UDP on specific ports - does this happen with all servers/ports or just the one?" If it does happen to you then try to use other ports, i will keep in touch with support if its happening again in the future.
  31. 1 point
    Interim further testing indicates you need to connect to your chosen VPN server on port 1912 for port forwarding to work - despite being able to choose from all connecting ports (1194, 1195 etc) for establishing your VPN on the port forwarding setup form. Obviously you can choose any unused port to forward. Don't forget you'll likely need to forward the same port as both TCP and UDP for torrenting.
  32. 1 point
    Archive.is not loading is due to the site administrator's hardline policy on how some DNS servers work (or do not, according to him). CloudFlare appears to be the default choice for TG VPN users, and it is incompatible with how archive.today (aka archive.li/archive.is etc) operates their DNS. From the admin: "unlike other public DNS services, 1.1.1.1 does not support EDNS Client Subnet." The site will simply fail to load for any CloudFlare DNS users. CloudFlare support thread about this problem: https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-error-1001/18227/12 I would try setting your DNS to Google DNS. Also FWIW, archive.is admin is also recommending to stop using archive.is and use archive.today or one of his other domains instead.
  33. 1 point
    I had some issues earlier but support live chat helped me out. The app installed with some default settings which may not be optimal for port forwarding, not sure. Support recommended these changes: I was already connecting with OpenVPN over UDP but with a stronger cipher and a different port. I didn't modify my TorGuard DNS settings (just using DHCP and VPN-pushed once connected, instead of Google for everything). I did however uncheck 'Seamless Reconnect' (what does that do?) and I also checked WebRTC Leak Prevent. IPv6 Leak Prevent was already checked. I'd already added my desired VPN IP as a custom server in the TG app preferences, be sure to do that. If you want to test, you can connect to a country server and 'pin' its IP (click the pushpin next to the public IP once connected, then use that for your port forward request - set up a custom server if all works after a reconnect.) I also deleted and remade my port forward request in the control panel. Mine was a combined TCP and UDP one, I remade it for port 1912 on my chosen VPN IP. I'd already tried port 1194 and 1195 without success. Not entirely sure what made it work in the end - I should do more testing in future to figure it out. I guess support recommend I use a simpler cipher to avoid any session setup problems, I wouldn't have thought that would make a difference. I would be interested to see if port forwards only work if they are requested, and you connect, via port 1912.
  34. 1 point
    Hello, OpenDNS does keep logs of the sites you visit, we don't so i would recommend you use TG public DNS or endpoint DNS if you can. In regards to captcha's on our own IP's, we can't exactly whitelist any Vpn IP's of which thousands of users will be using, if we whitelist them then we effectively let potential hackers do as they please on the site, brute force, dos etc unchecked. We also have to protect ourselves... Regards
  35. 1 point
    Hi JessiTom, you are right, normally that would be the case. The problem is that OpenVPN encryption is single threaded i.e. can use only one CPU core, no matter what. This is also the reason why OpenVPN on routers was/is relatively slow --> CPU is the bottleneck. What merlin does (among other things) is using the routers CPU core 2 to maintain all "normal" router functions like firewall, routing, MAC access etc etc and core 1 will focus on encryption. This way you get the max bandwidth (encryption wise) out of your router. Otherwise all would be balanced (as you already mentioned). But mind you, using core 1 solely for encryption works only with merlin firmware (as far as i know) so you need to use an ASUS router. And when you are at it choose the 86U (strongest CPU in the consumer market right now). I have seen some speedtests with the 86U and merlin firmware (under optimal environment) that could reach and breach 200MBit encrypted transfer! And thats a fantastic value. Also remember to use GCM cipher. it has a better performance. if some time goes by I am sure OpenVPN will be made multithreaded. There is currently a project underway thats called Frivpn that aims to do just that --> making Openvpn able to use more than one core. Just now for linux, hopefully some day for windows. Maybe soon wireguard will replace OpenVPN.... We will see....
  36. 1 point
    This was an issue a year or two ago when I used TorGuard and it still seems to be an issue now. There's nothing you can do to fix it. TorGuard's server config is botched in such a way that you can't negotiate with it. I'll use connecting to UDP port 53 as an example. These are the listed ciphers. cipher AES-256-CBC* cipher AES-128-GCM cipher AES-256-GCM cipher AES-128-CBC cipher BF-CBC A proper OpenVPN server would use cipher AES-256-CBC and then ncp-ciphers AES-256-GCM:AES-128-GCM:AES-128-CBC:BF-CBC. An older OpenVPN client (pre 2.4) would pass cipher AES-256-CBC in their client config. These don't support cipher negotiation, so OpenVPN 2.3 or less, or Open 2.4+ with cipher negotiation disabled, would use AES-256-CBC. But once cipher negotiation is in play (ncp), the cipher config is overridden in favor of ncp-ciphers. An OpenVPN client could pass a list in order of preference and as long as the server accepts them, the first one the server supports gets used. I build my own OpenVPN servers so I have worked with this. An example in my case, I only want to support the AES-256-GCM cipher as I only let the latest clients connect. I set cipher AES-256-CBC as is proper, then ncp-ciphers AES-256-GCM. Since any client with OpenVPN 2.4 by default will use negotiation, and I only list AES-256-GCM, the client absolutely must support and use AES-256-GCM. Technically, they could disable ncp client side and connect with AES-256-CBC (and a 2.3 client might be able to connect, but then I use 2.4+ features so they wouldn't work anyway). I could allow additional ciphers server side by setting ncp-ciphers AES-256-GCM:AES-256-CBC:AES-128-GCM:AES-128-CBC. Now, a 2.4+ client with ncp enabled will default to AES-256-GCM, but they can set ncp-ciphers in the client config to force any one of those 4. TorGuard will need to fix their servers to remedy this. There is nothing you can do on your end to force AES-256-GCM properly. I posted here awhile ago about this issue and it looks like they never fixed it. It would also be nice if they would allow SHA-512 on their tls-crypt servers, but at least according to the specs page that no configuration supports that, as opposed to the specs page stating all listed ciphers are valid on 2.4+ despite this being provably false due to their configuration error. On both ASUS Merlin and pfSense, there is no setting that allows me to get AES-256-GCM without the local/remote error and issues that follow from there. So I've just disabled ncp and used AES-256-CBC.
  37. 1 point
    Hello, I've seen many different configurations and I've asked several times in chat. What is the ideal configuration for Torguard? See attachments for what I have set. Is that safe?
  38. 1 point
    Hi, sorry for the stupid question, where do I find the streaming IP and how do I add it to TorGuard? I have bought one and would like to use it Thank-You
  39. 1 point
    Hi. Is there any update on Wireguard Servers? @Support The main reason i interested to this Technology is very little battery usage on smartphones. OVPN usually destroy battery life. I'm testing Wireguard on my own server and battery usage close to Zero. Can you guys provide any ETA for Wireguard servers? Thanks
  40. 1 point
    Hi, I love torguard, it's very fast. I'm using it for some time now. But something I couldn't figure out is the desktop software keeps shutting down on its own 5-10 times a day for some reason. Fortunately I made the firewall block settings, and internet shuts down too, otherwise I would be exposed. I'm using the latest version. If you want me to send you some logs etc. I'll be happy to do it, but you're gonna have to tell me how because logs folder is empty in appdata. I'm using Windows 10 64bit btw.
  41. 1 point
    Hi, for some time now I've noticed that the download speed on different servers have decreased dramatically. I can only get relatively decent speeds when using the closest server. Anything further away drops to 10-20% of the achievable speed without using VPN. For testing I have used: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/download These are the settings I'm using: Any suggestions? C3ll
  42. 1 point
    You should consider the Asus RT-AC86U and flash with Merlin firmware. The router has hardware acceleration and an 1800MHz processor. The built in vpn client makes it real simple to add TG or other OpenVPN service, especially with Merlin FW which has numerous very useful tweaks over Asus stock FW. I used Asus 68U and 88U prior and the 86U increases vpn speeds more than 50%. It's an awesome router for handling vpn. Has LAN-IPTV built in as well.
  43. 1 point
    Thanks for your suggestions, we are working to improve port forwards and will take note Regards
  44. 1 point
    I don't have much knowledge on the subject and need someone to explain certain aspects to me. I have done some research but online research isn't very friendly to someone who has limited knowledge on the subject in the first place. This thread could also be a future reference to others who use the VPN but are not very informed on what certain aspects are. - What's the different between OpenVPN and OpenVPN V2.4? -What's the different between enabling STunnel and not enabling it on the Torguard Client? -Should I be using STunnel? -Does stealth actually hide what VPN server i'm connecting to (NY, LA, Etc.), or does it only disguise my traffic to look like normal traffic from said server? -Is there any way around websites which specifically block the use of VPN's or proxies? Stealth connections don't seem to work all the time, at least for me.
  45. 1 point
    Customer support is really good at fixing speed issues. They usually suggest doing the following when using the TORguard app Please click more Settings-> Network on the VPN app Uncheck the block outside DNS boxLocate three drop downs under the " use these nameservers" section Choose Google under all three of them on by oneClick Save and restart App firstTry to ConnectPlease connect with tunnel type as Open Connect and Protocol as UDP this time. I recently changed ISP providers to also get 100/10 service and the same setting above were not working for me. I kept google as the name servers and went back to tunneltype = OPENVPN, protocol UDP, port 1195(SHA 256) Ciper AES-256-CBC The servers closest to me I was getting about 60-70 Mbps, if you in USA, the Chicago server seems to connect fastest for me I now get 108/11 when connected to torguard. Before I made changes my downloads would not get pass 20. Try the first suggestion as this is what Torguard support usually recommends.
  46. 1 point
    Hi Simon Is this the latest Tg Android app your running ? right now it will auto connect on boot or connect but not on application start - we do plan on adding this, i will try get it pushed in the next release. Regards
  47. 1 point
    Uk Manchester other providers have manchester
  48. 0 points
    When I was looking at the configs I saw that a lot of their config files say NO-TORRENTS in the string... ugh... now I have to use a dialup in Canada??? WTH Seems like it doesnt matter according to this thread. I saw no speed issues but I'll see how toronto works for me.
  49. 0 points
    I have some time to Play with it...Thanks. But it's my Houses only TV Service so I can't have those Download Speeds.
  50. 0 points
    Agreed. I hunted around for a while until I found a server in my preferred region with decent throughput, then set up port forwards manually. I'd be happy for the option of a longer connection setup time but dynamically created port forwards. As it is, if my chosen server is heavily loaded, I stay on it (increasing the problem of load) - because manually creating port forwards on another server is quite long-winded. 'Camping' port forward allocations on multiple servers, so I can hop around depending on load, is something I've not done because I think it's antisocial. The port forwarding features and design needs a bit of TLC
×
×
  • Create New...