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
31 35 left unknown, 1 not applicable
Completeness
51% the share the model could weigh
Citations
48 across 12 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 · 48 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.
Server footprint. The full list of countries TorGuard actually operates in sits behind a client-area login (/network/) that this session could not reach; marketing pages named only partial subsets (12 to 33 of a claimed "50+"). U02_server_countries and everything derived from it stay unknown rather than published from a list known to be incomplete.
No audit found, not the same as none existing. No independent security or no-logs audit appears on TorGuard's own site, in Cure53's or Securitum's published-engagement indexes, or announced on the company blog. Independent reviews agree none exists, but that class of source cannot establish a "no" here, so the whole V-block stays unknown.
the rest of what is open — 155 more words
A confidential settlement leaves disclosure history open. TorGuard was added as a defendant in Millennium Funding v. 1701 Management (S.D. Fla., 21-cv-20862) and settled in 2022 by agreeing to block US BitTorrent traffic. The settlement itself is confidential; TorGuard's own public claim that it could not have logged the traffic was never tested against a court record this session could open.
RAM-only left undeclared. TorGuard's own blog argues at length that RAM-only server marketing proves little about logging, without ever stating whether TorGuard's own fleet runs that way. That stance leaves C02_ram_only unknown rather than crediting or penalizing an architecture the provider never actually described.
A cross-store gap. Google Play's data-safety form declares no data collected at all for the Android app, while Apple's privacy label for the iOS app lists Identifiers, Contact Info and Diagnostics as collected (not linked to identity) — the same service describing itself two different ways to two platform reviewers.
On the record as a whole.
CEO Benjamin Van Pelt was prosecuted in Greece over an alleged ‘2,000 fraud conducted through a TorGuard-leased server and was acquitted of all charges on 2023-02-24 (source: TorGuard's own blog); X04 is coded from the prosecution itself, and the acquittal belongs alongside it rather than instead of it.
U04b_price_yearly ($59.99) is the plan's only displayed price; no separate "renews at" figure was shown, unlike most competitors' first-term discount schemes. Simultaneous-connection and kill-switch/split-tunnel features scale with plan tier (Standard 8 / Pro 12 / Ultimate 16 devices; Split Tunneling and "Kill Switch Pro" are named only on the Ultimate tier); U10 records the Standard-plan figure.
M11_owner_jurisdiction is left unknown rather than assumed equal to M06: Van Pelt's personal jurisdiction was never independently confirmed, only the LLC's.
RetentionDoes a record exist that links traffic to a person, and who checked?13 fields read · 11 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
Computed
×0.061 of a clean record completeness 51%
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 medium and the integrity status as unexamined.
Against the rest of the register, this record sits furthest above on Jurisdiction — ×0.849 where the register averages ×0.680 — and furthest below on Silence, ×0.790 against ×0.927.
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.
