How do VPN no‑logs policies get independently audited and verified?
Executive summary
Independent verification of VPN no‑logs promises is done through commissioned third‑party audits that inspect policies, configurations, staff practices and technical systems to confirm a provider’s claims [1] [2]. Those audits—ranging from Big Four assurance engagements to specialized security firms—produce point‑in‑time reports that increase transparency but cannot eliminate all risk, since scope, methodology and jurisdictional factors limit what a single audit can prove [3] [2].
1. What auditors actually examine and how the work is done
Auditors combine documentation review, interviews and hands‑on technical inspection: they review privacy policies and change‑management controls, interview engineering and operations teams, and analyze server configurations, DNS handling and metadata flows to see whether systems are configured to avoid persistent logging [4] [1]. Some engagements also include live or “real‑time” observation of systems to verify that ephemeral data used for abuse detection is processed in memory only and not written to disk, as Schellman reported for IPVanish [4]. Big Four firms and specialist security outfits have been retained to test obfuscated, multi‑hop and specialised server types so auditors can check the specific server classes that a provider advertises [5] [3].
2. Types of audits, standards and who does the work
There are two common audit streams: privacy or assurance engagements often handled by accounting/audit firms under standards like ISAE 3000, and technical security audits performed by cybersecurity companies that run configuration reviews, penetration testing and threat modelling [3] [2]. Providers have used both approaches: Deloitte and PwC have performed assurance reviews of NordVPN’s infrastructure [3] [5], KPMG examined ExpressVPN’s TrustedServer system [6], and specialist firms such as Securitum and Schellman have audited Proton and IPVanish respectively [7] [4].
3. What an audit report actually proves—evidence versus promises
An audit report confirms what the auditors observed at the time: configuration settings, administrative controls and documented procedures matched the provider’s no‑logs claim during the engagement window, and the auditors’ tests found no retained browsing or connection logs under that snapshot [3] [8]. Many providers publish the full reports or summaries so users can inspect scope, findings and any remediation steps—Proton and ExpressVPN explicitly point to repeated annual or periodic audits to build that chain of evidence [7] [6]. Published findings often describe specific tests—configuration file reviews, server access controls and change‑control verification—giving readers forensic detail rather than marketing claims [1] [4].
4. Limits, caveats and the alternative viewpoint
Audits are inherently point‑in‑time and scoped by what the commissioning VPN allows; they cannot guarantee future behaviour, catch every misconfiguration, or replace legal risks like subpoenas or compelled disclosures in some jurisdictions [2] [9]. Skeptics and investigative reporting note that audits can be used as PR—firms pay auditors and may choose limited scopes (a company might exclude certain servers, regions or timeframes), so an “audited” badge is necessary but not sufficient evidence of perpetual non‑logging [2] [9]. Vendors and auditors counter that repeat engagements, different auditors and transparent publication of reports raise the cost of deception and improve accountability, a claim supported by providers who have pursued annual audits and multiple independent firms [7] [6].
5. How to evaluate an audit when choosing a VPN
Trustworthy verification requires reading the report: check the auditor’s identity and independence, the standards used (e.g., ISAE 3000), the exact in‑scope systems and time window, whether technical tests and interviews were performed, and whether the provider publishes follow‑ups to address issues [3] [1] [2]. Prefer providers with repeated audits by reputable firms, clear descriptions of change‑control and memory‑only processing for abuse detection, and a record of transparency after incidents—these are the practices auditors flag as meaningful assurances rather than marketing soundbites [4] [6] [8]. If a claim lies outside available reports, reporting limits prevent asserting its truth or falsehood; readers must weigh the audit evidence against jurisdictional and operational risks documented by independent reporting [2] [9].