NetGus
My feedback
4 results found
-
3 votesNetGus
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
174 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment NetGus
commented
The lack of FQDN/IP-based split tunneling is going to become an issue. Given how long it’s been, I would have expected to see slightly more advanced features. I understand that these features will likely be used by only a minority, but they’re becoming crucial with the rise of remote work. I love your products, but the lack of certain features offered by other competitors leaves me a bit puzzled.
NetGus
supported this idea
·
-
433 votesNetGus
supported this idea
·
-
1,326 votesNetGus
supported this idea
·
I would really like to see Proton VPN implement true destination-based Split Tunneling, rather than limiting it primarily to applications.
The current application-based approach has a major limitation: sometimes I want an application to use the VPN, but I want specific destinations accessed by that application to bypass the VPN.
For example, my browser should work like this:
Internet websites → VPN
nas.example.com → direct connection
firewall.local → direct connection
Everything else → VPN
With the current application-based Split Tunneling, this isn't possible. I would have to exclude the entire browser from the VPN, which defeats the purpose of using the VPN for my normal web traffic.
The same issue exists with local network resources:
SMB shares on a NAS
NAS web interfaces
Firewall/router administration interfaces
SSH/RDP connections to local machines
Other internal web services
What I would like to see is the ability to create Split Tunneling rules based on destination, for example:
Exclude from VPN:
192.168.1.0/24
10.0.0.0/8
nas.example.com
homeassistant.example.com
*.internal.example.com
Ideally, Proton VPN could support:
FQDN / domain names
Wildcard domains
IPv4/IPv6 addresses
CIDR subnets
Optional port-based rules
This would be much more flexible than application-based Split Tunneling because the same application could then access both VPN and non-VPN destinations.
Windscribe already provides a much closer implementation of this concept, which makes the difference particularly noticeable.
I really like Proton VPN, but for users managing their own NAS, firewall, Home Assistant, servers, or other local infrastructure, this limitation is significant.
Please consider adding destination/FQDN-based Split Tunneling. It would make Proton VPN considerably more useful for advanced users while allowing us to keep our normal Internet traffic protected by the VPN.