Ruby interpreter - windows 'verified signer'

While I was browsing currently running processes on my system with the MS SysInternals 'Process Explorer', i noticed that the 'Ruby interpreter (GUI) 2.4.1p111 [i386-mingw32]' which PIA VPN runs under does not have a verified windows signature - '(No signature was present in the subject) http://www.ruby-lang.org/'. The 'pia_manager\nwjs\pia_nw.exe' does however have such a verified signer - '(Verified) London Trust Media Inc.'

Is this a Ruby or Windows issue?

Also is there a possible 64b version of ruby in existence? and perhaps a 64 bit version of PIA a possibility? (though i'm not sure if it would have any performance benefits)





Tagged:

Comments

  • Posts: 1,018
    Just asked the developers. Seems like we just signed all exes in the app's directory so the extracted ruby didn't get the treatment. They have opened a ticket on their end and we'll probably have signed Ruby in a future release :+1: Thanks for the heads up!

    As for 32bit vs 64bit, at the moment I think we just go 32bit because there is no benefit going 64bit for what's essentially just the GUI. OpenVPN itself is 64bit.
  • Posts: 5
    yeah just something I had happened to notice when I was trying to fix something unrelated on my system. can't ever be 'too' secure right?
    speaking of which, i noticed that up to 5 devices are allowed, which is awesome! I haven't read the full EULA (who has?) but does this refer to separate devices, or is a customer 'technically' allowed to tunnel (5x deep in the extreme i guess?). and then to get even more complex I connect my laptop to a local windows server machine to siphon internet off of, and partially because the shared connection is already PIA VPNed by the server, and booom, double protection on the laptop; in short, a separate, but also tunneled device.
    What I am getting at is does this user tunneling negatively affect local or PIA server performance and is thus frowned upon? Or is it all smiles and multi-layered peace of mind for all?
  • Posts: 1,018
    I think the spirit of the rule is to limit the number of concurrent devices connected so people don't start sharing their account with their whole family and friends. As far as I'm aware, we count each IP address as one person already.

    Given we officially support router setups to protect entire home networks, I think you're fine. We also don't impose any limits of how much data you can use within one connection, so what's the difference between someone downloading at 400 Mbps or 10 persons in the same house using 400 Mbps total for our network? It's the same for us, data is data. We don't look at your data.
Sign In or Register to comment.