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
42 23 left unknown, 2 not applicable
Completeness
64% the share the model could weigh
Citations
56 across 17 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 · 14 hereB weighs 0.85 · 41 hereC weighs 0.70 · 1 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 list. UltraVPN publishes regional server counts (1300 bare-metal servers, ~125 locations, split by continent) but no exhaustive country list; only about a dozen countries appear as examples on the locations page. Without the full list, U02_server_countries, and everything derived from it, stay unknown rather than resting on a sample dressed as the whole fleet.
Ownership chain is one hop removed from UltraVPN's own documents. The privacy policy and terms name only "Fast VPN Pro, S. de R.L." in Panama. That this is a Pango Group/Point Wild brand, sharing infrastructure and an Aon audit template with Hotspot Shield, Betternet and VPN360, comes from the sibling brand UltraAV's own "About" page and Point Wild's corporate pages, not from anything UltraVPN itself publishes.
the rest of what is open — 163 more words
The date of acquisition is unresolved. Aura's 2020 press release naming the Pango acquisition lists Hotspot Shield but not UltraVPN, so when Pango/AnchorFree took control of this brand specifically could not be pinned to a primary source; M16_control_since stays unknown rather than borrowing the 2020 date.
The one audit is narrower than its own title suggests. Aon's 2023 review validated the privacy policy's no-logging language against a single development VPN node and interviews; the firm states it was told upfront that Pango does not collect or retain logs, so reviewing production log data itself "was not in scope." No later report has followed it.
Requests received and account handovers are Pango-Group aggregates, not UltraVPN's own. The 2023 transparency report shows zero search warrants and zero court orders group-wide, which supports none_known on those two, but it also shows 11 subpoenas that produced some content, with no way to attribute them to a brand. P02_disclosure_history is left unknown rather than guessed in either direction.
On the record as a whole.
Comparitech (comparitech.com) is itself a Point Wild/Pango sibling and is classed forbidden in sources.csv; it is cited here only for X11, the one field where the disclosure on a review site is the fact in question, per the AUDITOR.md exception for X08/X11.
A separate, non-primary claim surfaced in that same review — that Pango/Point Wild's ultimate parent is "WC SACD Holdings Inc." — was not used to fill M09_owner_ultimate, which instead rests on Point Wild's own privacy policy naming Point Wild Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Pango Group, Inc.).
U04b_price_yearly ($35.88) is the first-term annual total ($2.99/mo x 12); the order page states the plan renews at $99.99/yr. U07_protocols codes "Hydra" as proprietary: it is AnchorFree/Pango's own transport, and its source is not published. M18_shared_infrastructure (shared_backend) rests on Aon reviewing Ultra VPN "under the Pango Group banner" in the same report template used for Betternet, Hotspot Shield and VPN360, and on the app offering the same proprietary Hydra transport as Hotspot Shield.
the rest of what is open — 208 more words
V04_scope_servers (sample) and V11_audit_findings: Aon's technical component was "logging data from Aon conducted browsing activity on a development VPN node" — one node, not the fleet — and hosting-environment security was explicitly out of scope; Aon states it found no indication browsing activity could be correlated to a unique user identity and did not identify plaintext IP logging, but Aon was told upfront that no logs are collected or retained, so a review of production log data itself was excluded from scope rather than performed.
V06_firm_category (other): Aon is a global risk/insurance and cyber-consulting firm, not a dedicated security-audit specialist or a Big Four accounting firm. V07_audit_standard (none): no ISAE 3000, SOC 2 or other named assurance framework is cited anywhere in the report. C07a_app_sdk (ads) and C12_device_identifier (resettable_ad_id) both rest on the App Store privacy label marking Identifiers as "Used to Track You", Apple's cross-app ad-tracking category.
X12_store_data_declaration (matches_policy): the privacy policy already discloses collecting "device or mobile advertising identifiers", which is what that tracking-identifier category names, so the store label adds no undisclosed category.
RetentionDoes a record exist that links traffic to a person, and who checked?13 fields read · 2 left unknown · 53.4 points of pressure×0.466
Composed rather than added: a prior of 0.55 on the stated branch, moved by what the paper says (0.0302) and by what the practice shows (0.0), at credence 0.0302 from the audit and 0.476 from how the provider engaged, against a severity of 0.03 for what is actually retained.
At least one independent auditmaterialV01_audit_exists
yes_verified
Computed
×0.166 of a clean record completeness 64%
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 ×0.466, and its bar above is filled to that.
Exposure is recorded as low and the integrity status as clean.
Against the rest of the register, this record sits furthest above on Jurisdiction — ×0.950 where the register averages ×0.680 — and furthest below on Hygiene, ×0.720 against ×0.808.
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.
