{"id":53774,"date":"2019-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-12-09T21:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/blog_prohoster\/sravnenie-proizvoditelnosti-instrumentov-obhoda-blokirovok-vpn"},"modified":"2020-02-18T14:01:42","modified_gmt":"2020-02-18T11:01:42","slug":"sravnenie-proizvoditelnosti-instrumentov-obhoda-blokirovok-vpn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/administrirovanie\/sravnenie-proizvoditelnosti-instrumentov-obhoda-blokirovok-vpn","title":{"rendered":"Comparison of Performance of Unblocking Tools","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"

As access to various online resources becomes increasingly restricted, the question of how to bypass these blocks grows more relevant, leading to the inquiry, \"How can we unblock these restrictions faster?\"<\/p>\n

We'll set aside the effectiveness of overcoming DPI whitelists and blacklists for another time and simply compare the performance of popular unblocking tools.<\/p>\n

Attention: This article contains many images under the spoilers.
\n<\/a><\/noindex>
\nDisclaimer: This article compares the performance of popular VPN and proxy solutions under conditions close to 'ideal'. The results obtained and described here may not necessarily match your results in real-world situations, as the numbers in speed tests often depend not on how efficient the unblocking tool is, but on how your provider throttles, QoS, or blocks it.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/h3>\n

\nA cloud provider (DO) has purchased 3 VPS in different countries around the world. Two in the Netherlands, and one in Germany. The most powerful VPS (based on core count) was selected from the options available for the account with coupon credits. <\/p>\n

A private iperf3 server is deployed on the first Dutch server. <\/p>\n

On the second Dutch server, various unblocking tool servers are deployed in succession. <\/p>\n

A desktop Linux image (Xubuntu) with VNC and a virtual desktop is deployed on the German VPS. This VPS acts as a conditional client, and various proxy clients are installed and launched in succession. <\/p>\n

Speed measurements are conducted three times, focusing on the average, using 3 tools: through Chromium via a web speed test; through Chromium via fast.com; and from the console via iperf3 through proxy chains (where it is necessary to route iperf3 traffic through the proxy). <\/p>\n

A direct connection from 'client' to iperf3 server achieves a speed of 2 Gbps in iperf3, and slightly less in the fast speed test.<\/p>\n

An inquisitive reader might ask, 'Why didn\u2019t you choose speedtest-cli?' and would be correct. <\/p>\n

The speed test client turned out to be an unreliable and inadequate way to measure bandwidth for reasons unknown to me. Three consecutive measurements could yield three completely different results or, for example, show a bandwidth much higher than the port speed of my VPS. Perhaps the issue lies in my clumsiness, but I found it impossible to conduct research with such a tool.<\/p>\n

Regarding the results from the three measurement methods (speedtest, fast, iperf), I consider the iperf results to be the most accurate, reliable, and trustworthy, while fastspeedtest is more of a reference. However, some circumvention tools prevented the completion of three measurements through iperf3, and in such cases, one could rely on the speed test fast.<\/p>\n

The speed test gives different results.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Toolset<\/h3>\n

\nA total of 24 different circumvention tools and\/or their combinations were tested, and I will provide a brief explanation of each along with my impressions of working with them. Essentially, the goal was to compare the speeds of shadowsocks (along with various obfuscators for it), openVPN, and wireguard.<\/p>\n

In this material, I will not delve into the question of 'how to better hide traffic so it doesn't get cut off,' because circumventing blocks is a reactive measure \u2014 we adapt to what the censor uses and act accordingly.<\/p>\n

Results<\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

Strongswan ipsec<\/h4>\n

\nIn my experience, it is very easy to set up and works quite stably. Its advantages include being truly cross-platform, without the need to find clients for each platform.<\/p>\n

download \u2014 993 mbits; upload \u2014 770 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

SSH tunnel<\/h4>\n

\nIt seems that only a lazy person hasn't written about using SSH as a tunneling tool. Its downsides include the 'makeshift' nature of the solution, meaning you won't be able to deploy it from a convenient, elegant client on every platform. However, it has good performance, and there\u2019s no need to install anything on the server at all.<\/p>\n

download \u2014 1270 mbits; upload \u2014 1140 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison<\/p>\n

OpenVPN<\/h4>\n

\nOpenVPN was tested in four operating modes: tcp, tcp+sslh, tcp+stunnel, udp.<\/p>\n

OpenVPN servers were set up automatically using streisand.<\/p>\n

As far as I can tell, at the moment only the stunnel mode is resistant to advanced DPI. The reason for the abnormal increase in bandwidth when wrapping OpenVPN-TCP in stunnel is unclear to me; tests were conducted in multiple sessions, at different times and on different days, and the results were the same. This may be related to the network stack settings established during the deployment of Streisand, let me know if you have any ideas on why this is happening.<\/p>\n

openvpntcp: download \u2014 760 mbits; upload \u2014 659 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nopenvpntcp+sslh: download \u2014 794 mbits; upload \u2014 693 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nopenvpntcp+stunnel: download \u2014 619 mbits; upload \u2014 943 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nopenvpnudp: download \u2014 756 mbits; upload \u2014 580 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Openconnect<\/h4>\n

\nNot the most popular tool for bypassing restrictions, included in the Streisand package, so it was decided to test it as well.<\/p>\n

download \u2014 895 mbits; upload 715 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Wireguard<\/h4>\n

\nA trendy tool popular among Western users, the protocol's developers even received some grants for development from protection funds. It operates as a Linux kernel module via UDP. Recently, clients for Windows and iOS have appeared.<\/p>\n

It was conceived by its creator as a simple and fast way to watch Netflix from outside the U.S. <\/p>\n

Here are the pros and cons. Pros \u2014 a very fast protocol, relatively easy to install and configure. Cons \u2014 the developer did not originally create it for bypassing serious blockages, and as a result, WireGuard can easily be detected by simple tools, including Wireshark.<\/p>\n

WireGuard protocol in Wireshark<\/b>\"Comparison
\ndownload \u2014 1681 mbits; upload 1638 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nInterestingly, the WireGuard protocol is used in the third-party client Tunsafe, which, when used with the same WireGuard server, gives much worse results. It's likely that the Windows client for WireGuard will show similar results:<\/p>\n

tunsafeclient: download \u2014 1007 mbits; upload \u2014 1366 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

OutlineVPN<\/h4>\n

\nOutline is an implementation of Shadowsocks server and client with a beautiful and user-friendly GUI from Google's Jigsaw. In Windows, the Outline client is simply a set of wrappers for the Shadowsocks-local binaries (Shadowsocks-libev client) and BadVPN (tun2socks binary, directing all machine traffic to a local SOCKS proxy).<\/p>\n

Once, Shadowsocks was resilient to the great Chinese firewall, but according to recent reviews, this is no longer the case. Unlike Shadowsocks, it does not natively support obfuscation connection through plugins, but this can be done manually with some tinkering on the server and client.<\/p>\n

download \u2014 939 mbits; upload \u2014 930 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

ShadowsocksR<\/h4>\n

\nShadowsocksR is a fork of the original Shadowsocks, written in Python. It essentially represents Shadowsocks to which several methods of traffic obfuscation have been firmly attached. <\/p>\n

There are ssR forks on libev and some other platforms. The low bandwidth is likely due to the programming language. The original Shadowsocks in Python is not significantly faster.<\/p>\n

shadowsocksR: download 582 mbits; upload 541 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Shadowsocks<\/h4>\n

\nA Chinese censorship circumvention tool that randomizes traffic and employs other clever methods to hinder automated analysis. Until recently, it was not blocked by the GFW, but it is said to be blocked now only when UDP relay is enabled. <\/p>\n

Cross-platform (clients are available for any platform), supports working with PT like Tor obfuscators, has several of its own or adapted obfuscators, fast.<\/p>\n

There are many implementations of Shadowsocks clients and servers in various languages. In testing, shadowsocks-libev served as the server, while various clients were used. The fastest Linux client turned out to be shadowsocks2 in Go, distributed as the default client in Streisand. I cannot say how much more efficient it is than shadowsocks-windows. For most subsequent tests, shadowsocks2 was used as the client. Screenshots of the testing of pure shadowsocks-libev were not made due to the obvious lag of this implementation.<\/p>\n

shadowsocks2: download \u2014 1876 mbits; upload \u2014 1981 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nshadowsocks-rust: download \u2014 1605 mbits; upload \u2014 1895 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nShadowsocks-libev: download \u2014 1584 mbits; upload \u2014 1265 mbits.<\/i><\/p>\n

Simple-obfs<\/h4>\n

\nA plugin for Shadowsocks, currently in a 'depreciated' status but still works (although not always well). Largely displaced by the v2ray-plugin. It obfuscates traffic either under HTTP WebSocket (allowing you to spoof the destination host headers, making it appear you are visiting a site like the Russian Constitution, not Pornhub) or under pseudo-TLS (pseudo because it doesn't use any certificates; basic DPI like free nDPI detects it as 'tls no cert'. In TLS mode, header spoofing is not possible). <\/p>\n

Sufficiently fast, installs from the repo with a single command, is very easy to configure, and has a built-in failover function (when traffic from a non-simple-obfs client comes to the port that simple-obfs listens on, it forwards it to the address specified in the settings \u2014 this way, you can avoid manual checking of port 80, for example, by simply redirecting to a website using http, and also blocking via connection troubles).<\/p>\n

shadowsockss-obfs-tls: download \u2014 1618 mbits; upload 1971 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nshadowsockss-obfs-http: download \u2014 1582 mbits; upload \u2014 1965 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nSimple-obfs in http mode can also work through a reverse proxy CDN (for example, Cloudflare), so for our provider, the traffic will appear as http plaintext traffic to Cloudflare, which helps to better conceal our tunnel, and also separates the entry and exit point of the traffic \u2014 the provider sees that your traffic is directed toward CDN, while extremist likes on the images are displayed at this moment from the VPS's IP address. It should be noted that the s-obfs through CF works ambiguously, periodically failing to open some http resources. Testing upload using iperf through shadowsockss-obfs+CF was unsuccessful, but judging by the speed test results, the bandwidth is at the level of shadowsocksv2ray-plugin-tls+CF. I am not attaching screenshots from iperf3 because they should not be relied upon. the IP address<\/a> download (speedtest) \u2014 887; upload (speedtest) \u2014 1154.<\/p>\n

download (speedtest) \u2014 887; upload (speedtest) \u2014 1154.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nv2ray-plugin<\/i><\/p>\n

The V2ray-plugin has replaced simple-obfs as the primary \u201cofficial\u201d obfuscator for ss-libev. Unlike simple-obfs, it is not yet in repositories, so you need either to download a pre-compiled binary or compile it yourself.<\/h4>\n

\nIt supports 3 operating modes: default, http-websocket (with support for spoofing the destination host headers); tls-websocket (unlike s-obfs, this is full-fledged tls traffic, recognizable by any web server reverse proxy, and for example allows setting up tls termination on Cloudflare servers or in nginx); quic \u2014 works over udp, but unfortunately the performance of quic in v2ray is very low.<\/p>\n

Among the advantages compared to simple-obfs: the v2ray plugin works flawlessly through CF in http-websocket mode with any traffic, and in tls mode, it represents full tls traffic, requiring certificates to operate (for example, from Let's Encrypt or a self-signed certificate).<\/p>\n

Compared to simple-obfs, the v2ray plugin works without issues through CF in http-websocket mode with any traffic, in tls mode it functions as full-fledged tls traffic, and requires certificates (for example, from Let's Encrypt or a self-signed certificate).<\/p>\n

shadowsocksv2ray-plugin-http: download \u2014 1404 mbits; upload 1938 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nshadowsocksv2ray-plugin-tls: download \u2014 1214 mbits; upload 1898 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nshadowsocksv2ray-plugin-quic: download \u2014 183 mbits; upload 384 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nAs I mentioned, v2ray can set headers, allowing it to work through reverse proxy CDNs (like Cloudflare, for example). On one hand, this complicates tunnel detection, while on the other hand, it may slightly increase (or sometimes decrease) latency\u2014this depends on the location of you and the servers. Currently, CF is testing QUIC, but this mode is not yet available (at least for free accounts).<\/p>\n

shadowsocksv2ray-plugin-http+CF: download \u2014 1284 mbits; upload 1785 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
\nshadowsocksv2ray-plugin-tls+CF: download \u2014 1261 mbits; upload 1881 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Cloak<\/h4>\n

\nCloak is the result of further development of the GoQuiet obfuscator. It simulates TLS traffic and works accordingly over TCP. Currently, the author has released the second version of the plugin, cloak-2, which differs significantly from the original cloak. <\/p>\n

According to the developer, the first version of the plugin used the tls 1.2 resume session mechanism to spoof the destination address for TLS. After the release of the new version (cloak-2), all wiki pages on GitHub describing this mechanism were removed, and there are no mentions of it in the current encryption obfuscation description. According to the author, the first version of cloak is not used due to 'critical vulnerabilities in crypto.' At the time of testing, only the first version of cloak was available, and its binaries are still hosted on GitHub. Furthermore, critical vulnerabilities are not particularly significant, as shadowsocks encrypts traffic just as effectively without cloak, and cloak has no effect on the crypto of shadowsocks. <\/p>\n

shadowsockscloak: download \u2014 1533; upload \u2014 1970 mbits<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Kcptun<\/h4>\n

\nKcptun uses the KCP protocol<\/a><\/noindex> and, in some special cases, allows for increased throughput. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this is particularly relevant for users in China, where some mobile operators aggressively throttle TCP but do not touch UDP.<\/p>\n

Kcptun is incredibly resource-intensive and can easily max out 4 CPU cores when testing with a single client. Additionally, the plugin is 'slow' and does not complete tests via iperf3 until the end. We rely on speed tests in the browser.<\/p>\n

shadowsockskcptun: download (speedtest) \u2014 546 mbits; upload (speedtest) 854 mbits.<\/b>\"Comparison
\n<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

\nNeed a simple, fast VPN to cloak your entire machine's traffic? Then your choice is Vaergard. Do you want proxies (for selective tunneling or splitting virtual personal streams) or is it more important for you to obfuscate traffic from serious blockages? Then check out Shadowsocks with TLS\/HTTP obfuscation. Want to ensure that your internet works as long as the internet does? Choose traffic proxying through crucial CDNs, whose blocking would cause half of the internet to go down in the country.<\/p>\n

summary table, sorted by download<\/b>\"Comparison
\n
Source: habr.com<\/a><\/p>","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u041f\u043e \u043c\u0435\u0440\u0435 \u0442\u043e\u0433\u043e, \u043a\u0430\u043a \u043d\u0430\u043c \u0432\u0441\u0435 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u0440\u044b\u0432\u0430\u044e\u0442 \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f \u043a \u0440\u0430\u0437\u043b\u0438\u0447\u043d\u044b\u043c \u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0440\u0441\u0430\u043c \u0432 \u0441\u0435\u0442\u0438, \u0432\u0441\u0435 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0441\u044f \u0432\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441 \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0431\u043b\u043e\u043a\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u043a, \u0430 \u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0438\u0442 \u0432\u0441\u0435 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0441\u044f \u0432\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441 \u00ab\u0410 \u043a\u0430\u043a \u0436\u0435 \u0431\u044b\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u044c \u0431\u043b\u043e\u043a\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0438?\u00bb. \u041e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043c \u0442\u0435\u043c\u0443 \u044d\u0444\u0444\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438, \u0441 \u0442\u043e\u0447\u043a\u0438 \u0437\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0430 DPI\u0432\u0430\u0439\u0442\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0432\u0431\u043b\u0435\u043a\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0447\u0430\u044f, \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e \u0441\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c \u043f\u043e\u043f\u0443\u043b\u044f\u0440\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0438\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0431\u043b\u043e\u043a\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u043a. \u0412\u043d\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435: \u0412 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0434 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[688],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-administrirovanie"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n","aioseo_head_json":{"title":"\ud83e\udd47Comparison of performance of bypassing tools VPN | ProHoster","description":"As access to various online resources gets increasingly restricted, the question of bypassing blocks becomes more pressing, leading to the question of 'How can we bypass them faster.'","canonical_url":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/administrirovanie\/sravnenie-proizvoditelnosti-instrumentov-obhoda-blokirovok-vpn","robots":"max-image-preview:large","keywords":"","webmasterTools":{"miscellaneous":""},"schema":null,"og:locale":"en_US","og:site_name":"ProHoster | \u041a\u0443\u043f\u0438\u0442\u044c \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0436\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0445\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0441\u0430\u0439\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u0441 \u0437\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0442 DDoS, VPS VDS \u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0440\u044b","og:type":"article","og:title":"\ud83e\udd47\u0421\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u0438\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0431\u043b\u043e\u043a\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u043aVPN | ProHoster","og:description":"\u041f\u043e \u043c\u0435\u0440\u0435 \u0442\u043e\u0433\u043e, \u043a\u0430\u043a \u043d\u0430\u043c \u0432\u0441\u0435 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u0440\u044b\u0432\u0430\u044e\u0442 \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f \u043a \u0440\u0430\u0437\u043b\u0438\u0447\u043d\u044b\u043c \u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0440\u0441\u0430\u043c \u0432 \u0441\u0435\u0442\u0438, \u0432\u0441\u0435 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0441\u044f \u0432\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441 \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0431\u043b\u043e\u043a\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u043a, \u0430 \u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0438\u0442 \u0432\u0441\u0435 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0441\u044f \u0432\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441 \u00ab\u0410 \u043a\u0430\u043a \u0436\u0435 \u0431\u044b\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u044c.","og:url":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/administrirovanie\/sravnenie-proizvoditelnosti-instrumentov-obhoda-blokirovok-vpn","og:image":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-350.jpg","og:image:secure_url":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-350.jpg","og:image:width":350,"og:image:height":350,"article:published_time":"2019-12-09T21:00:00+00:00","article:modified_time":"2020-02-18T11:01:42+00:00","article:publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/prohoster","article:author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/prohoster"},"aioseo_meta_data":{"post_id":"53774","title":null,"description":null,"keywords":null,"keyphrases":null,"primary_term":null,"canonical_url":null,"og_title":null,"og_description":null,"og_object_type":"default","og_image_type":"default","og_image_url":null,"og_image_width":null,"og_image_height":null,"og_image_custom_url":null,"og_image_custom_fields":null,"og_video":null,"og_custom_url":null,"og_article_section":null,"og_article_tags":null,"twitter_use_og":false,"twitter_card":"default","twitter_image_type":"default","twitter_image_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_fields":null,"twitter_title":null,"twitter_description":null,"schema":{"blockGraphs":[],"customGraphs":[],"default":{"data":{"Article":[],"Course":[],"Dataset":[],"FAQPage":[],"Movie":[],"Person":[],"Product":[],"ProductReview":[],"Car":[],"Recipe":[],"Service":[],"SoftwareApplication":[],"WebPage":[]},"graphName":"","isEnabled":true},"graphs":[]},"schema_type":null,"schema_type_options":null,"pillar_content":false,"robots_default":true,"robots_noindex":false,"robots_noarchive":false,"robots_nosnippet":false,"robots_nofollow":false,"robots_noimageindex":false,"robots_noodp":false,"robots_notranslate":false,"robots_max_snippet":null,"robots_max_videopreview":null,"robots_max_imagepreview":"large","priority":null,"frequency":null,"local_seo":null,"seo_analyzer_scan_date":"2026-02-08 20:46:20","breadcrumb_settings":null,"limit_modified_date":false,"reviewed_by":null,"ai":null,"created":"2021-02-28 11:56:36","updated":"2026-02-08 20:46:20","focus_keyword":null,"additional_keywords":null,"truseo_locale":null},"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"link","format":"url"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53774"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":157849,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53774\/revisions\/157849"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}