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
27 39 left unknown, 1 not applicable
Completeness
42% the share the model could weigh
Citations
45 across 13 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:
B weighs 0.85 · 45 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.
Independent verification. No audit, pentest or open-source client was found anywhere on the site, in its sitemap, or in a web search; every security property rests on the provider's own word. A published audit, even a narrow one, would be the single fact that moves this record most.
Whether the CIS "Safe" locations sit on local hardware. Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan are all offered through a Double VPN chain described only as masking "the source of traffic"; nothing on the site says whether the final hop is physical hardware inside the mandate country or a virtual exit hosted elsewhere, which is exactly the question C09b_mandate_hosting needs answered.
the rest of what is open — 120 more words
The full in-app protocol list. RedLink (VLESS/AmneziaWG-based obfuscation) is documented for the website's own configuration generators and router/Linux manual setup, but no page enumerates what the Windows, Android, iOS and macOS apps actually offer a user choosing a protocol, so U07 and the derived C13 stay unknown rather than risk a truncated list.
Who stands behind Private Network Labs LLC. The record has a legal entity and a Hamilton, NY address, and nothing beyond that - no founder, no team, no ultimate beneficial owner. The warrant canary's mention of a related "TgVPN" service (whose own domain now redirects here) hints at a longer operating history than the 2017 founding date alone shows, but nothing pins down what "related companies" means.
On the record as a whole.
The provider's canonical domain is redshieldvpn.net (redshieldvpn.com, the domain listed in providers.csv, serves the identical site and canonicalises to .net via <link rel=canonical> and its own JSON-LD). tgvpn.com redirects to this same site, and the warrant canary names "TgVPN" alongside Red Shield VPN as a related service - read here as a retired earlier brand rather than a currently separate product, since no live TgVPN app or page was found.
RetentionDoes a record exist that links traffic to a person, and who checked?13 fields read · 12 left unknown · 55.0 points of pressure×0.450
Composed rather than added: a prior of 0.55 on the none branch, moved by what the paper says (0.0) and by what the practice shows (0.0), at credence 0.0 from the audit and 0.2975 from how the provider engaged, against a severity of 0.03 for what is actually retained.
How the report is publishedV02_report_publication
unknown
nothing published · recorded as asserted
Computed
×0.103 of a clean record completeness 42%
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 ×0.450, 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 Ignorance, ×0.530 against ×0.662.
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.
