In what circumstances a SOCKS proxy is vulnerable and a VPN is not?

  • Are you talking about a local SOCKS proxy which then opens an encrypted tunnel to a remote server (that's how Tor works), or a remote SOCKS proxy? Commented May 28, 2017 at 8:48
  • A good middle-ground between SOCKS and VPN would be a HTTPS proxy. I have Squid set up with the https_port directive, which Firefox connects to using a PAC URI like this. It creates a secure tunnel between your browser and the proxy server without a VPN; encryption is applied even for non-HTTPS requests.
    – Cauterite
    Commented May 28, 2017 at 9:35
  • @CodesInChaos I mean creating a SOCKS5 tunnel from terminal to remote server (i.e my VPS).
    – Babr
    Commented May 29, 2017 at 21:26

1 Answer 1


SOCKS doesn't add any additional encryption by default. If your traffic is already encrypted then it will stay that way. While a VPN can encrypt everything leaving your machine, such as DNS.

SOCKS also does not protect against traffic analysis

I know you didn't ask benefits, but to help balance my argument for others, SOCKS can be a lot faster because of the lack of additional overhead encrypting.

  • Few people have fast enough network for the encryption overhead to matter. A typical desktop CPU can AES-GCM encrypt a 10 Gbit connection without breaking a sweat. Commented May 28, 2017 at 8:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .