Is Public Wi-Fi More Secure Than Personal VPN Services?

An IT security group I associate with recently wrote a blog post on threats and scenarios for securing mobile phones. It’s well worth a read.

One line stood out to me as interesting because I wanted to understand the evidence for that. It feels true, but that’s not the same as being true.

That Greg is…

more likely to select a malicious VPN provider than he is to run into malicious Wi-Fi

Speaking to the authors the answer was more anecdotal than quantifiable based upon the lack of reports on malicious public Wi-Fi in recent years and the number of reports of malicious personal VPN providers.

To validate that there are plenty of examples of personal VPN services leaking logs, but as I have written about before that doesn’t make those services more, or indeed less, secure than they are now.

Also, while public VPN services are not a new concept, they have become more prominent in the last 5-6 years, which could lead you to think that data leaks by personal VPN services are more likely because those services are note-worthy and therefore more interesting to report on.

Conversely using public Wi-Fi has been a concern for many people for far longer but with phone 3G and up being more common place this would mean its usage is likely lower. It seems though that evidence for this and ‘hacks’ on public WiFi service having significant effects in the real world are hard to track down. The reasons for this are either because it rarely happens, or rarely gets identified.

Defining Terms#

For clarity a public WiFi service is any wireless network with an internet connection provided by a company in a public space. This means coffee shops such as Starbucks but does not include corporate Guest WiFi that you might find in a workplace. A public WiFi provider is the company that provides that WiFi service.

Whereas personal VPN services are a kind of internet service provider that supplies internet access via a Virtual Private Network and is aimed directly at consumers rather than businesses. A personal VPN provider is a company such as NordVPN or ExpressVPN that run these services.


The core of the question here is:

Are you more likely to use a public WiFi that has a vulnerability that could do you harm, than a personal VPN service that has a vulnerability that could do you harm?

Part of the complexity in answering this is that we’re comparing apples and oranges. You can tell through a logic test, that you can run a VPN over public Wi-Fi but not the other way around. This dissimilarity makes comparing risks difficult and the only reasonable way to measure it is through qualitative thought experiments.

Economic Incentives for Security#

To start with lets look at the reasons a company might run one of these services as the economic models for public WiFi services and personal VPN services are quite different. Using Behavioural Economics we can identify constraints and motivations for running it.

Personal VPN services have a very traditional “quid pro quo” subscription model, this means that those who tout their services as improving security have a specific interest in you having secure system, or they would be out of business. It doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but they are incentivised to make it less subseptable to vulnerabilities, in much the same way cloud providers are.

The payment model for public WiFi services is more complex. Coffee shops and libraries are widely regarded as a place to get free WiFi. The payment model is indirect. In coffee shops you are paying for your WiFi as a portion of your purchases. The WiFi encourages you to choose that venue over other similar venues, and the act of you staying there means you spend more on food and drink. You can infer therefore, that a coffee shop or library is more interested in providing a public WiFi service at the lowest cost they can entice people with. It’s not going to harm their business as much if there’s malware flying around the network – although arguably it should.

Security Considerations#

I wanted to address some of the good, although patchy and inconsistent work that personal VPN providers do on security of their services. WiFi providers, as mentioned, don’t have the same incentives to provide this information.

Some personal VPN services do bring in auditors for their code, which is good as long as you trust the audit, but also comes with the caveat that the audit covers the code for a particular point in time. Some also have vulnerability reporting incentives. While some can provide additional blocking.

A thing to consider is that personal VPN services typically requires you to download and install potentially untrustworthy applications on to your machine to gain access to their services. While some provide configurations for widely used VPN software.


The final part is discoverability. This is your likelihood of accessing a personal VPN service vs a public WiFi service.

A personal VPN service would typically be a one-to-one relationship between consumer and business. Where as there are a lot of public WiFi providers. In the United Kingdom public WiFi services are usually from big telecoms providers such as Virgin Media, BT and Sky, but they could also in a smaller shops be an ad-hoc PSK posted on a wall, or printed on a menu. You may use several in a year (or used to). However a personal VPN service can be accessed from anywhere at any time.

I think it’s also a likely scenario that if you were new to personal VPN services you would probably perform a search for the best providers which is really a list of affiliate links and the one at the top probably gives the author the largest share of the referral fee, but you might not choose the top one because they’re the most expensive, so maybe the 5th one? Then at some point down the road that company isn’t doing so well and gets bought out by someone not so reputable, and sunk cost fallacy says you’re going to stick with it anyway.

Moot Points#

There are some security considerations that both public WiFi services and personal VPN services share. It’s worth drawing those out here as some may see them as one providing an advantage of one over another.


The vast majority of web traffic is now HTTPS which means you are less likely to have your traffic changed in some way, but it is still likely that the providers can see meta data about your traffic. Typically you provide a public WiFi provider some information about you on sign-up, although I rarely see that being verified. A personal VPN provider can probably tell who was accessing what because you’ve presumably provided them some payment details, although I’m sure some more privacy minded folks might pay via a crypto currency.

Further Monetisation#

I have no doubt that large public WiFi providers monetise your traffic by taking meta data and selling that on. While some VPN providers claim they don’t, if you’re looking to make cost savings and choosing a cheaper provider I wouldn’t count on them changing their minds.

Data Leaks#

Both public WiFi services and personal VPN services have leaked personal data in the past. It’s an inevitability of time. It’s the nature of IT, as mentioned though I don’t think it’s necessarily a reflection of the current IT practices of those services.


Like most answers in IT security, it really depends on your circumstances. Tom Scott does (like always) provide a fantastic summary of why you might want to use a VPN and I completely agree, while Troy Hunt has a less than unbiased view on why you should use NordVPN.

What this demonstrates is that VPNs are not a quick fix, even for technically minded people. There are a lot of ways to get it wrong.

That means if you’re in a position to use a personal VPN services, given the amount of choices you may choose one that doesn’t meet all your security needs. Whereas public WiFi services are less frequently used and have a larger surface area, and where they are most used they are run by large reputable companies.

So it seems like public WiFi services are probably less malicious than some or all of the personal VPN services, but a huge aspect of that is exposure.