Where the security score comes from
Eight channels, each asking one question of the published record and reading a named set of fields to answer it. They multiply rather than add — the factor beside a channel is what is left after the pressure it found, and open a channel to see every field it read, as it is stored. How the model works
Security fields
67 55 of them feed a channel
Established
36 27 left unknown, 4 not applicable
Completeness
55% the share the model could weigh
Citations
57 across 15 documents
Every value carries what it rests on, and the model weighs the four levels differently. Weight, then how many citations on this record sit at that level:
A weighs 1.00 · 18 hereB weighs 0.85 · 39 here
The weights are methodology.json’s own; a claim seen in the artefact itself counts for more than the same claim reported second-hand. The date at the end of a row is the day that value was last read.
A channel does not price every field it reads. The ones it did are marked along their edge and carry what they added; everything else was read and cost nothing. Only a channel that composes field by field can mark a field at all — the rest price themselves by the parameters printed above their rows.
Still open on this record.
Retention audit. Three 7ASecurity engagements (2022, 2024, 2025) cover app security, protocol implementation, supply chain and a threat model, but none of them audit data-retention practice: V11 stays not_stated and C01 rests on the privacy policy alone.
A policy that both denies and describes IP processing. The policy states "we do not collect or store" IP addresses in one section and "we also process IP addresses... temporarily" for abuse handling and AmneziaFree blockage analysis in another, with no numeric retention window given either way. C01 records the worst case (source_ip) on that basis; a stated deletion window would move it.
the rest of what is open — 110 more words
Two legal entities, one brand. The about page names EUPHORIATECH LIMITED (Cyprus) while the privacy policy names ANARCHY LAB S.R.L. (Romania) as the data controller; the relationship between them is not explained anywhere on the site.
Enforcement history. No transparency report, warrant canary, seizure record or court record could be found for this provider; P01-P03, P08-P09 and P11 stay unknown rather than none_known because the search here was a site read, not a dedicated legal-record search.
Server fleet detail. The Premium location list gives 20 countries with no physical/virtual marking and no stated hosting-ownership model, so C08 and C09b_mandate_hosting stay unknown despite several listed countries sitting under a retention mandate.
On the record as a whole.
This record scores Amnezia Premium/Free, the hosted commercial VPN service (M12_service_class = commercial_vpn). Amnezia also publishes Amnezia Self-Hosted, open-source software for running a VPN on a server the user rents themselves; that is a different product with a different risk model and is not scored here, though the client app and much of the protocol stack (AmneziaWG, XRay) is shared between the two.
U07_protocols/C13 reflect only the two protocols Premium's own app and pricing page offer (AmneziaWG, XRay VLESS Reality); the self-hosted variant additionally offers OpenVPN and ShadowSocks. The Apple developer name on the App Store listing ("Privacy Technologies") does not match either legal entity named on the website; not investigated further.
RetentionDoes a record exist that links traffic to a person, and who checked?13 fields read · 2 left unknown · 1 not applicable · 75.0 points of pressure×0.250
Composed rather than added: a prior of 0.55 on the silent branch, moved by what the paper says (0.0393) and by what the practice shows (0.0), at credence 0.0393 from the audit and 0.5652 from how the provider engaged, against a severity of 0.75 for what is actually retained.
Computed
×0.033 of a clean record completeness 55%
Where the drop comes from: Retention. It is the channel this record's risk is concentrated in — on its own it takes a clean record to ×0.250, and its bar above is filled to that.
Exposure is recorded as low and the integrity status as unexamined.
Against the rest of the register, this record sits furthest above on Integrity — ×0.799 where the register averages ×0.658 — and furthest below on Jurisdiction, ×0.350 against ×0.680.
Every row above is one field of the published record, and every one of them can be challenged: every row carries Report, or raise something about the record as a whole. A correction with a source behind it is made the same day, and if it moves the score it moves the rank.
