Apple has officially unveiled AirPods 5, and the biggest surprise is not another AI feature or a marginal change to the charging case. Active Noise Cancellation is now standard on Apple’s least-expensive AirPods, with the new open-ear wireless earbuds starting at $129.

That is a significant change from AirPods 4, where consumers had to spend $179 to get ANC. Apple is also offering AirPods 5 with a Wireless Charging Case for $149, making the more expensive version $30 cheaper than the previous AirPods 4 with ANC while adding longer battery life and on-stem volume control.

Apple lowering the barrier to entry rather than moving it higher? Somewhere, an accountant in Cupertino needs to have their temperature checked.

ANC Is Now Standard on AirPods 5

The biggest change is straightforward: both AirPods 5 models include Active Noise Cancellation.

Apple claims the new earbuds can remove up to 50 percent more external noise than AirPods 4 with ANC, thanks to an all-new multiport acoustic architecture and improved computational audio algorithms. Apple is calling it the industry’s best ANC in an open-ear wireless headphone, although that claim is based on its own July 2026 testing against the bestselling open-ear wireless headphones commercially available at the time.

Open-ear ANC has always been a tricky proposition because the earbuds do not create the passive acoustic seal provided by silicone or foam eartips. Apple managed to make it surprisingly effective on AirPods 4 with ANC, and a claimed 50 percent improvement would be meaningful if real-world performance gets anywhere close.

AirPods 5 also include an improved Transparency mode designed to reproduce surrounding voices and environmental sounds more naturally. Adaptive Audio dynamically blends ANC and Transparency based on ambient conditions, while Conversation Awareness automatically lowers media volume when the wearer starts speaking.

That brings Apple’s complete noise-control suite into its $129 AirPods for the first time.

New Acoustic Architecture Targets Better Sound

ANC might dominate the headline, but Apple has also re-engineered the acoustic system.

AirPods 5 use an all-new multiport acoustic architecture inspired by AirPods Pro 3, combined with Apple’s next-generation Adaptive EQ. According to Apple, the system is designed to provide richer and more detailed sound across a wider range of ear geometries.

That last part matters more with an open-ear design than it might sound. Without an eartip creating a consistent seal, the relationship between the earbud, the listener’s ear, and the acoustic output can have a significant impact on bass response and tonal balance.

Adaptive EQ attempts to compensate for those differences electronically, while the redesigned acoustic architecture handles airflow and sound delivery mechanically. Apple also says the changes make Personalized Spatial Audio more immersive and dynamic.

We will reserve judgment on all of that until somebody actually puts them in their ears. Our review of the AirPods Pro 3 found its expanded feature set impressive but its sonic balance less convincing than AirPods Pro 2, which proved that more computational horsepower does not automatically produce better music reproduction.

AirPods 5 Get Siri AI and Live Translation

Apple is also turning AirPods into a more important hands-free interface for Apple Intelligence.

When paired with an Apple Intelligence-supported iPhone, AirPods 5 can access Apple’s new Siri AI, which begins rolling out in beta with iOS 27. The upgraded assistant can use personal context from messages, emails, photos, and other information while also accessing broader world knowledge and performing supported actions inside apps.

That means users could ask Siri to play a song recommended in a message or find directions to a restaurant based on a reservation confirmation buried inside an email. Siri Interactions also allow users to respond by nodding their head for yes or shaking it for no, which has the additional benefit of making everyone around you wonder why you are suddenly arguing silently with yourself.

Siri AI launches in beta in English on September 14, with French, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish support scheduled for October. Apple notes that some functionality will vary by region and device, and Siri AI will not initially be available in the EU on iOS, iPadOS, or watchOS.

Live Translation is also supported on AirPods 5. After downloading the required languages in Apple’s Translate app, users can start a translation session by pressing both stems simultaneously, asking Siri, or using the Action button on an iPhone.

The feature uses ANC and computational audio to make translated speech easier to hear and requires a compatible Apple device running current software with Apple Intelligence enabled. Language and regional availability vary.

AirPods 5 With Wireless Charging Case Adds More Than Charging

The $149 version is where Apple’s two-model strategy becomes slightly more complicated.

AirPods 5 with Wireless Charging Case add wireless charging compatibility with Apple Watch chargers and Qi-compatible chargers while retaining USB-C. The $149 version also receives a redesigned battery that provides up to five hours of playback with ANC enabled, one hour longer than AirPods 4 with ANC. Total listening time with ANC reaches up to 22 hours when the charging case is included.

There is another useful difference: volume control.

The $149 AirPods 5 add a force sensor with volume swipe, allowing users to adjust playback volume by sliding a finger up or down the stem. This is the first time Apple has offered that control on its open-ear AirPods.

For only $20 more than the standard version, wireless charging, longer battery life, and direct volume adjustment make the $149 model look like the obvious choice unless saving twenty bucks is the primary objective.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4

Apple’s new pricing substantially changes the value proposition compared with the previous generation.

AirPods 4 launched at $129 without ANC, while AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation cost $179. That second model also included the more capable wireless charging case.

AirPods 5 put ANC into both versions while keeping the base price unchanged.

What Makes AirPods 5 Unique?

The combination of an open-ear design and serious Active Noise Cancellation remains the defining feature.

Most high-performance ANC earbuds rely on silicone or foam eartips to create a seal that provides substantial passive isolation before their microphones and DSP do anything. AirPods 5 attempt to deliver meaningful noise reduction without sealing the ear canal, which should appeal to listeners who dislike the pressure, isolation, or fit of traditional in-ear designs.

Apple’s other advantage remains ecosystem integration. Siri AI, Live Translation, Personalized Spatial Audio, Adaptive Audio, Conversation Awareness, head gestures, and seamless integration with Apple devices combine into a feature set that is difficult for competitors to duplicate across an entire hardware and software ecosystem.

That doesn’t automatically make AirPods 5 the best-sounding wireless earbuds for $129 or $149. Sony, Technics, Bose, Samsung, Nothing, and other brands have turned this part of the market into a knife fight, and Apple’s continued reliance on its own ecosystem rather than broader high-resolution Bluetooth codec support will still matter to some listeners.

But bringing ANC to $129 changes the conversation rather dramatically.

AIrPods Compared

Compatibility & Availability

AirPods 5 can be preordered starting September 9 in the U.S. and more than 65 countries and regions. Both models arrive in stores on Friday, September 18.

Apple says full feature functionality requires AirPods 5 to be paired with an Apple device running the latest operating-system software. Personalized Spatial Audio requires a compatible iPhone with a TrueDepth camera to create the personalized listening profile.

Apple Intelligence launches with iOS 27 on September 14 on supported hardware and in supported languages. Live Translation also requires Apple Intelligence to be enabled and is not available in every country, region, or language.

The Bottom Line

AirPods 5 are a more meaningful upgrade than their familiar appearance might suggest. Putting Active Noise Cancellation into the $129 model removes one of the biggest compromises associated with Apple’s least-expensive AirPods, while the new acoustic architecture, Adaptive EQ, improved Transparency mode, Live Translation, and Siri AI substantially expand what Apple’s mainstream wireless earbuds can do.

The $149 AirPods 5 with Wireless Charging Case look even more compelling. For only $20 more, buyers get wireless charging, up to five hours of ANC playback, 22 hours with the case, and on-stem volume control while still spending $30 less than the previous AirPods 4 with ANC.

None of that tells us whether AirPods 5 actually sound better, and Apple’s claim of best-in-class open-ear ANC deserves independent testing before anyone starts engraving the trophy. But Apple has made its most affordable AirPods significantly more capable without raising the $129 starting price.

Bose And Sony have been put on notice.

For more information: apple.com/airpods-5/

At least four espionage groups, most with suspected links to China, are using a new exploit kit that chains two Chromium-based browser flaws and one Microsoft Windows bug to break into organizations’ networks in the US and Southeast Asia.

Mark Kelly, a threat researcher at email security shop Proofpoint, told The Register that the researchers don’t know exactly who was targeted, nor how, and so far the damage appears limited. “In terms of organizations targeted, we saw fewer than 20 organizations globally targeted across the activity highlighted,” he said. “However, the true number is almost certainly higher than this.”

Proofpoint’s threat hunters spotted the new kit, which they named BlueMoon, and said its first observed use started on August 28. This is when a Beijing-backed crew they track as TA412, also known as Violet Typhoon and APT31, used BlueMoon to “repeatedly” target non-governmental organizations (NGOs), mining companies, and physical commodity trading firms in the US.

TA412 is a cyberespionage group linked by US authorities to China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS), and American prosecutors previously charged seven alleged members with conspiracy to commit computer intrusions and wire fraud, alleging they broke into computer networks, email accounts, and cloud storage belonging to numerous critical infrastructure organizations, companies, and individuals.

Just days after Proofpoint documented the late-August activity, “several other espionage-motivated clusters began using BlueMoon, the majority of which have a suspected China nexus,” Kelly and fellow researchers Greg Lesnewich, Konstantin Klinger, Saher Naumaan, Julia Paluch, David Galazin, and Stuart Del Caliz said on Wednesday, noting that there may be other, non-China-nexus attackers using the exploit kit as well.

“BlueMoon was developed and deployed rapidly, and shared across multiple threat actors within days,” Kelly told The Register. “This may reflect a reduced cost and barrier to entry for this class of capability, which has historically been rare and high value, as AI agents increasingly enable threat actor exploit development. That is particularly true for open-source codebases such as Chromium, where publicly accessible upstream patches create a ‘patch-gap’ window for rapid reverse engineering and exploit development ahead of downstream stable releases.”

A Google spokesperson declined to comment beyond what Proofpoint wrote. Microsoft patched the Windows bug (CVE-2026-85880) on Tuesday, and a spokesperson reiterated that customers who applied that patch are protected.

BlueMoon attack chain

The kit chains together three vulnerabilities. 

The first is a V8 type confusion (CVE-2026-85046) flaw that allows remote code execution and affects all Chromium-based browsers, including Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge. Google patched this bug in Chrome on September 3, and at the time warned that it “is aware that an exploit for CVE-2026-85046 exists in the wild.” Microsoft published a security advisory saying it fixed the flaw in Edge Stable version 152.0.4191.62 on September 2.

The second is a Chrome V8 sandbox escape. This one also affected all Chromium-based browsers. It does not have a CVE because Google doesn’t issue them for sandbox escapes.

Finally, the third bug is a privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call (CVE-2026-85880) that Microsoft patched on Tuesday, as noted above. Redmond also warned that this flaw had been exploited as a zero-day prior to the security update.

The Proofpoint researchers also note that both V8 vulnerabilities are what’s called “patch-gap” zero-days at the time of the observed activity. This means they were known and fixed in upstream Chromium source code – a change containing the fix for CVE-2026-85046 was committed on August 7. But they remained unpatched in the latest stable releases of Chrome and Chromium-based browsers available to the public for weeks. 

“It is likely that the exploit kit developer used these publicly available Chromium patches to weaponize the browser exploit chain,” the researchers note.

From phishing to browser surveillance

The attacks start with a phishing email that tricks victims into clicking on an actor-controlled URL. This triggers the two V8 bugs to allow remote code execution and escape the browser sandbox. The attack chain then exploits the Windows bug to download multiple payloads including browser-surveillance malware, credential-stealing backdoors, and others, depending on the group using the exploit kit.

TA412’s first campaign, which began on August 28, used a range of lures. Some of the emails purported to come from university students interested in internships at the targeted organizations, and some were more target-specific exchanges, intended to build trust with the individual before ultimately sending a malicious link via email. 

In these instances, the exploit chain “ultimately downloaded and ran a loader executable on the infected host, which then installed a malicious browser extension disguised as Google Gemini on the victim’s Chromium-based browser,” the team wrote. 

This browser extension, which Proofpoint tracks as GemStone, allowed the Beijing spies to issue commands through a command-and-control (C&C) channel, steal cookies and other sensitive data, take screenshots, and inject a keylogger into a browser tab. The malware also contains a keyword monitor, which injects an attacker-specified keyword list into the top frame of each page, scans the HTML body for these keywords, and triggers a screenshot if it finds any.

A few days later, beginning on September 2, a second China-aligned spy crew that Proofpoint tracks under the temporary group designator UNK_LateNight used BlueMoon to target multiple US aerospace companies. 

The phishing emails used request-for-quotation lures specific to defense industry organizations, and included links to attacker-controlled domains spoofing a variety of US aerospace companies. These websites also served the BlueMoon exploit kit and ultimately loaded a backdoor called ShadowPad, which has been shared among multiple China-aligned groups since 2019.

Around this same time, on September 2, another suspected espionage group that Proofpoint tracks as UNK_DoubleCheck targeted a Vietnamese manufacturing firm with messages sent from a compromised Southeast Asian government email address.

The fourth campaign began a day later, and involved suspected China-linked spy crew UNK_QuietRacket using BlueMoon to target government, consulting, and financial-sector organizations in Indonesia and Singapore. These phishing emails used lures related to Indonesian conferences, such as the Indo Startup Expo and Forum 2026 and the World Conference on Creative Economy (WCCE 2026). 

Proofpoint warns that BlueMoon will likely be used by both cyberspies and financially motivated attackers.

“The broader dynamic revealed by this activity – rapid exploit development that leverages the open source patch-gap – is likely to recur beyond BlueMoon as this development model becomes accessible,” the team wrote. ®

• Calif researchers found a zero‑click WeChat VoIP flaw enabling account takeover via calls
• “WeWorm” spreads through ringing calls; victims need not answer to be compromised
• Tencent patched in Android 8.0.77 and iOS 8.0.76; no exploitation seen in the wild

Security researchers have found a flaw in WeChat which allows malicious actors to take over people’s accounts on both Android and iOS devices – but what makes this flaw stand out is the fact that it’s a zero-click bug – victims need not do a thing to be compromised.

WeChat is a “super-app”, allegedly used by roughly 1.4 billion people, and is especially popular in China. It started as a communications app, letting users send messages, and make voice and video calls, and has evolved to function as a social network, allowing users to share photos and videos, as well as a payment app through which users can transfer money, pay for things, order food, book taxis, and even access government and business services.

First look: Following years of fervent speculation, Apple finally unveiled its first folding phone, the iPhone Duo, at its ‘Surprise and Shine’ event in Cupertino, California. The company is betting big on its first foldable, with new CEO John Ternus calling it “the most transformational change to iPhone since the original.”

The iPhone Duo arrives with two “Super Retina XDR” ProMotion displays, including a large 7.6-inch folding panel on the inside and a smaller 5.4-inch screen on the outside. Both are protected by Ceramic Shield 2 and offer 3000 nits of peak outdoor brightness. They will both support the updated USB-C Apple Pencil with a future software update.

On the hardware side, the Duo is powered by the A20 Pro SoC, which comprises a 6-core CPU, a 7-core GPU, and a dual 16-core Neural Engine. Apple claims that compared to the A19 Pro, the new CPU and GPU are up to 20% and 40% faster, respectively, while being more power efficient. The Neural Engine reportedly offers 2x the compute power as the A19 Pro to run on-device AI models.

Built by TSMC on its 2nm node, the new chip incorporates a custom vapor chamber for improved thermal management.

Apple says that the new cooling solution makes the A20 Pro better than its competition at multitasking, gaming, and complex AI workloads. The company also claims that the new chip offers 35% better sustained performance than the iPhone 17 Pro.

The Duo sports a 48MP Fusion ultra-wide main camera on the outside, paired with a secondary 12MP 2x optical telephoto camera. The main sensor supports 4K 120fps recording and 4K time lapse in Dolby Vision HDR. Additionally, there’s a Center Stage camera on the front and an under-screen FaceTime camera on the inside for video calls.

The iPhone Duo is built out of Grade-5 titanium that adds structural rigidity and keeps the weight down. It also uses a 3D-printed hinge cover with a micro-blasted finish, offering a stark contrast to the mirror polish of the main frame. Apple also added antenna splits with ceramic fiber inserts to enhance the frame’s rigidity.

The foldable brings back Touch ID with an old-school fingerprint scanner integrated into the power button. It can also be unlocked using Face ID and with the Apple Watch. The device uses Apple’s in-house N1 networking chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread connectivity, while the C2 cellular modem adds 5G mmWave support.

The Duo ships with iOS 27, but with several features designed specifically for the folding screen. One of the custom features is the Today View, which shows two Home Screens, including one with a vertically scrolling list of customizable widgets. Other changes include a redesigned Dynamic Island and a circular module on the status bar to show Wi-Fi, cellular strength, and battery information.

The iPhone Duo is available in Star White and Night Sky colorways, starting at $1,999 for the base $256GB model. Pre-orders begin October 16, with general availability from October 23.

A nearly identical exploit kit that targets critical vulnerabilities in both Chromium-based browsers and older versions of Windows is being actively used by at least four hacking groups, some of which have ties to the Chinese government.

Researchers from security firm Proofpoint said Wednesday that BlueMoon, the name they gave to the kit, chains three vulnerabilities together so the attackers using it can install malware of their choice. BlueMoon exploits two Chromium vulnerabilities and one in the kernel of Windows 10 (Oct 2018 Update), Windows Server 2019, Windows 10 2004, Windows Server 2022, and the initial release of Windows 11. All three vulnerabilities have received patches in the past 24 hours.

Deployed rapidly, widely shared

The attacks lacked the stealth found in many campaigns. More often, hackers want to exploit newly discovered vulnerabilities sparingly to lengthen their longevity. Proofpoint hypothesized that one reason for the widely used and visible exploit chain was to take advantage of a “patch gap” in the Chromium supply chain, which spans the time a patch is available from developers and the time that patch is incorporated into browsers such as Chrome and Edge. Another likely contributor was the use of AI, which can often spot vulnerabilities faster than discovery performed solely by humans.

Both these factors likely pushed the attackers to move quickly before a window of opportunity closed. Proofpoint said:

A fully weaponized Chrome exploit chain has historically been a high-value, rare capability. BlueMoon was developed, deployed rapidly, and shared across multiple threat actors within days in a manner that had high detection signals. This may reflect a reduced cost and barrier to entry for this class of capability, as AI agents increasingly enable threat actor exploit development. This is particularly relevant for open source codebases, such as Chromium, where upstream patches are publicly accessible prior to downstream consumers of the codebase applying the patch. This creates a window for threat actors to attempt to rapidly reverse engineer patches and develop exploits ahead of downstream stable releases.

The four groups targeted a wide range of organizations and companies. The groups and targets included:

Monitoring a home often means watching several things at once. Just as a car pulls into the driveway, a visitor might approach the front gate, or movement could catch your eye in the side garden. For many European homes, this is a familiar scenario.

The challenge becomes even more noticeable when a property includes a backyard, detached garage, or swimming pool. Installing another camera for every angle is one solution, but it also means more devices to set up, manage, and maintain.

Multi-lens cameras offer a more practical way to see more from a single device. While dual-lens models have pushed outdoor security in the right direction, they still face limitations. Because these lenses often capture activity independently, crucial details can slip through the cracks. Even designs pairing a fixed lens with a movable one can leave blind spots, and overall coverage remains inherently limited by having only two perspectives.

At IFA 2026, EZVIZ is taking the idea a step further with its 90f Triple series. It is available in two models, with the wired EZVIZ H90f Triple and the battery-powered EZVIZ HB90f Triple offering different power options. The series has been named an IFA Innovation Award Honoree, putting three-lens outdoor security among the innovations EZVIZ is highlighting at this year’s show.

Three lenses change more than the viewing angle

Both models share the triple-lens design at the heart of the 90f Triple series, pairing three lenses with three motors and dual rotations. Unlike a setup where one perspective remains fixed, this design gives the cameras greater freedom to adjust their viewing direction, reducing the pressure to find the perfect installation angle.

Imagine someone entering through the front gate, then heading toward a side garage. Or picture movement starting at the far edge of the garden and steadily approaching the house. EZVIZ’s Co-Detection technology enables all three lenses to work in unison to automatically track a target as it moves. This helps capture a more fluid, detailed picture rather than just disjointed views of the same space.

While the automation handles the heavy lifting, stepping in manually is just as fluid. You can set the lenses to operate independently and toggle between viewpoints with a quick tap. When a faraway subject needs your attention, the triple-lens 3K clarity and 12x lag-free mixed zoom help bring distant activity into clearer focus.

This flexibility makes the 90f Triple series suitable for a wide range of property layouts. Whether it’s a cottage with a deep garden, a terraced house with multiple outdoor zones, a sprawling farmhouse, or a small business managing an entrance and parking lot, the cameras are designed to meet different coverage challenges.

Maximum coverage without the alert fatigue

Seeing more is useful, but it can easily create a new problem if every bit of outdoor activity becomes another notification to check.

Both the H90f Triple and HB90f Triple use AI-powered human and vehicle shape detection to identify relevant activity. Familiar face recognition provides even more context by identifying people the cameras already know, making it easier to understand what is happening at a glance. Moreover, EZVIZ processes this feature locally at no additional cost.

Where the HB90f Triple differs is its power setup and additional battery-model features. For locations where wired power is inconvenient, its 10,400mAh rechargeable lithium battery works alongside an included 8W solar panel to minimize the need for manual maintenance. Whether you are monitoring a detached garage, a large garden, or a rural property, this setup provides greater flexibility over where the camera can be installed.

The HB90f Triple also features AOV 2.0 technology to close the potential gaps that can come from relying solely on event-triggered recording. If suspicious activity occurs, its built-in siren and red-and-blue warning lights serve as an active deterrent rather than merely recording the event.

For years, seeing more of a property meant installing another camera. EZVIZ is now drawing on its smart home expertise to make the case for a different approach. Moving from one lens to two gave outdoor security a new perspective, but three coordinated lenses allow a single device to monitor more of the spaces you actually want to keep in view. With the 90f Triple series at its IFA 2026 showcase, EZVIZ offers a compelling look at where multi-lens security is heading next.

Digital Trends partners with external contributors. All contributor content is reviewed by the Digital Trends editorial staff.

Apple hosted its annual iPhone launch event on Wednesday, and something we didn’t see — along with base iPhone 18 models, as Apple focused purely on premium devices — was a second iteration of its lightweight iPhone Air.

At just 5.6mm thick and weighing only 165 grams, last year’s $999 iPhone 17 Air gave buyers a middle-ground option between the base iPhone 17 and the iPhone 17 Pro models, and for a pretty reasonable price. 

While sales of the iPhone Air were reportedly disappointing, it was arguably a first step toward launching the iPhone Duo — a demonstration that a slim, lightweight phone could be just as durable and high-functioning as a fully specced-out one. It came with just one rear 48-megapixel wide-angle camera, a smaller battery and a single speaker.

The Air’s pared-back features and slim profile would have been pivotal to designing Apple’s new folding phone, since foldables must be both slim and make similar compromises on specs — the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 only has two rear lenses, compared with the three that come on other Galaxy models, and the iPhone Duo likewise has just two rear cameras.

We were hoping Apple would release another version of the Air with improved cameras and battery life, especially since that middle ground still exists. Some people just want a phone that’s slightly better than the base iPhone, and many people want a capable phone without having to spend upward of $1,199 — the cheapest phone Apple announced on Wednesday as it took the wraps off premium handsets like the iPhone Duo, iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max.

iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max

Many people also don’t want a phone that folds. CNET’s survey of more than 2,600 adults last month found that 75% were not interested in a foldable iPhone and that most would want to spend less than $1,000 if they did get one. But the Duo costs between $1,999 and $3,199 — far exceeding the iPhone Air’s original $999 price tag.

Apple also raised the prices on its iPhone 17 lineup on Wednesday as it announced its new high-end handsets, leaving the middle ground with fewer options, even in previously available models. The iPhone 17 Air now starts at $1,099, with the price increases coming amid RAMageddon, the global memory shortage caused by the spike in AI tools. Apple continues to whittle down options for more budget-conscious consumers in a difficult economy. 

We’re still holding out hope that the iPhone 18 Air has been pushed back until a rumored spring launch, where it could be unveiled alongside an iPhone 18 base model and a potential iPhone 18E, the budget follow-up to this year’s iPhone 17E. 

IDC Worldwide Device Trackers Senior Research Director Nabila Popal likewise believes Apple is strategically withholding the second iPhone Air until next year to bundle with the iPhone 18 and iPhone 18E — launching a trio of more affordable smartphones to contrast with the premium trio of the iPhone 18 Pro, Pro Max and Duo that were just announced.

“It allows Apple to spread its shipments more evenly throughout the year and simultaneously allow the spotlight on the premium models this fall — especially the new iPhone foldable,” Popal said. “Apple is spreading its portfolio to a wider consumer demographic and giving consumers more choice.”

But for now, the lack of lower-end models means anyone wanting to upgrade their phone to a brand-new Apple handset will be stuck choosing between an $1,199 iPhone 18 Pro and up to an eye-watering $3,199 for a 2TB iPhone Duo.

Corinne Reichert

Senior Editor

Corinne Reichert (she/her) grew up in Sydney, Australia and moved to California in 2019. She holds degrees in law and communications, and currently writes news, analysis and features for CNET across the topics of electric vehicles, broadband networks, mobile devices, big tech, artificial intelligence, home technology and entertainment. In her spare time, she watches soccer games and F1 races, and goes to Disneyland as often as possible.

See full bio

Advertisement

Proton VPN Free is the best overall free VPN in this evidence-based comparison because it combines unlimited data, no advertising, open-source applications, and recurring independent no-logs audits. Windscribe Free is better for multiple personal devices, while hide.me is a strong alternative when unlimited data and no-email signup matter.

The important word is not just “free.” Every no-cost VPN imposes a trade-off somewhere, whether that means restricted server choice, a monthly data allowance, fewer features, one simultaneous connection, or an account requirement. This guide compares those limits using current provider documentation verified on September 8, 2026. No first-hand speed, latency, or streaming tests were supplied, so none are presented as our own results.

Quick Take: Best Free VPNs at a Glance

The table below focuses on what actually changes when you pay $0. Compare the data allowance first, then look at simultaneous connections, server choice, registration requirements, and the strength of the provider’s privacy evidence.

Proton VPN is the easiest recommendation when one device needs continuous protection because there is no monthly data ceiling. Windscribe becomes more attractive when several personal devices need VPN access. hide.me also removes the data cap, but its free tier restricts speed and location choice.

How We Evaluated Free VPN Services

Privacy Comes Before Price

A virtual private network, or VPN, creates an encrypted connection between your device and a VPN server. That can prevent the local network or internet service provider from directly inspecting traffic inside the VPN tunnel, but it also means the VPN operator occupies an important position in your network path.

That trust should not be granted simply because an application appears in an app store. The Federal Trade Commission’s VPN privacy guidance warns that VPN apps can receive extensive access to internet traffic and that some free services may fund themselves through advertising or information sharing. The FTC also notes that a VPN does not make a person completely anonymous.

For this reason, a free VPN gets more credit here when its privacy claims have evidence beyond marketing language. Useful signals include published source code, independent security assessments, no-logs audits, transparent descriptions of retained account data, and clear explanations of how the free service is funded.

An audit still has limits. It examines a defined system at a particular time. It does not guarantee that a provider can never make a configuration error, suffer a vulnerability, or change its practices later.

Data Caps and Speed Limits Are Not the Same Thing

A data cap is the total quantity of data you are allowed to transfer over a period. A speed limit restricts how quickly that data can move. The distinction matters because providers use both approaches.

For example, a 10 GB free VPN could run at normal available speed until that 10 GB is consumed. An unlimited-data service can remain connected indefinitely but may restrict free-user speeds or give paid customers more capacity.

Server congestion is another variable. Even when a provider says it does not impose a formal speed cap, a heavily used free server can still be slower because many customers share finite network resources. That is why this article does not translate “no speed limit” into a guarantee of a particular throughput.

Free VPN Business Models Matter

The most understandable free-VPN model is freemium. A freemium provider offers a restricted service at no cost and funds it partly from customers who upgrade to paid subscriptions.

That model explains why a free account might receive 10 GB instead of unlimited data, fewer server locations, or one connection rather than ten. It does not prove that the provider is secure, but it provides a clear economic reason for maintaining the free tier without needing to monetize browsing activity.

The evaluation therefore considers both technical restrictions and the transparency of the privacy model. A large free allowance does not compensate for unclear data handling.

The Best Free VPN Services in 2026

1. Proton VPN Free: Best Overall

Proton VPN Free takes the top position because its most important limitation is not data volume. The provider currently offers unlimited free data with no stated time limit, no advertising, and one simultaneous device.

The free application automatically connects to a server from Proton’s limited free-server pool rather than giving users the full location control of a paid account. Current official documentation identifies automatic free connections across the United States, Netherlands, Japan, Poland, Romania, Canada, Norway, Mexico, Singapore, and Switzerland. Proton also notes that free servers can become busy.

That makes the free plan especially practical for one laptop or phone that stays connected for long periods. You do not have to calculate whether normal browsing, software updates, cloud synchronization, or occasional video use will exhaust a monthly quota.

The privacy evidence is also stronger than a simple no-logs statement. Proton’s apps are open source, and its free-plan documentation states that the free service has no data limit and uses the same core privacy protections. Proton also publishes a recurring no-logs audit record, updated in June 2026 to include its fifth consecutive annual assessment.

The main compromise is control. Free users receive automatic server selection and do not receive the complete paid server network or features such as Secure Core, BitTorrent support, and Proton’s full premium server choices.

• Best fit: one user who wants to leave a VPN connected without watching a data meter.
• Look elsewhere if: you need several simultaneous devices or precise control over your exit country.

2. Windscribe Free: Best for Multiple Devices and Controls

Windscribe Free is a better fit when device count matters more than unlimited data. The free account can be used across unlimited personal devices, while the baseline monthly allowance depends on whether you provide an email address.

You receive 2 GB per month without an email. Confirming an email increases that allowance to 10 GB per month. Windscribe also runs optional promotions that can increase the cap, but those conditional bonuses are not treated as the standard allowance in this comparison.

The free tier includes more technical controls than many no-cost competitors. Current free-plan documentation lists its firewall leak protection, multiple VPN protocols, split tunneling, and limited R.O.B.E.R.T. domain filtering alongside a smaller server pool.

Windscribe is also unusually explicit about operational records. For free accounts, it says it retains the total bandwidth used during the current period so it can enforce the cap, plus a last-activity timestamp used to remove abandoned accounts. It states that it does not retain browsing destinations, DNS queries, or traffic-linked session histories.

This is a useful example of why “no logs” should not be interpreted as “no operational information of any kind.” A provider with a 10 GB cap needs some mechanism to determine when the account reaches 10 GB.

The biggest weakness is obvious: 10 GB can be generous for web browsing but restrictive for heavy video, large downloads, operating-system updates, or continuous cloud synchronization.

• Best fit: users who want to protect several personal devices and value configuration controls.
• Look elsewhere if: you expect to keep the VPN active during large data transfers every day.

3. hide.me Free: Best Unlimited-Data Alternative

hide.me is the strongest direct alternative to Proton for users who dislike monthly data caps. Its current free plan provides unlimited data, allows one simultaneous connection, and does not require an email address or payment card.

That last point creates a meaningful difference. A user can install the client and begin using the free service without tying the VPN account to an email address. The trade-off is that the free tier has restricted speed and a much smaller location pool than the paid service.

Current hide.me pages are not completely consistent about whether the free tier exposes seven or eight locations. Its pricing and free-VPN pages say eight, while one support comparison updated in 2026 lists seven named server locations. Because the provider’s own documentation conflicts, this article treats the exact count as changeable rather than presenting one number as definitive.

The provider has stronger privacy evidence than most free products. Its no-logs documentation describes independent assessments of its logging implementation and provides access to audit material. A 2024 Securitum assessment examined areas including server configuration, deployment processes, and the standardized VPN environment used by the service.

That audit is valuable evidence, but it remains a point-in-time assessment. It should not be interpreted as a permanent security certificate.

Best fit: one-device users who want unlimited data and prefer not to provide an email address.

Look elsewhere if: you need predictable high throughput, several simultaneous devices, or specialized streaming servers.

4. PrivadoVPN Free: Best for Defined Higher-Speed Workloads

PrivadoVPN Free uses a different model. Instead of offering unrestricted full-speed usage, it provides 10 GB of data every 30 days on its normal free service and then offers restricted emergency or Lite-mode connectivity after that allowance is consumed.

Current pricing documentation states that free users receive 10 GB every 30 days, access to a limited group of server locations, and one connection at a time. Its support documentation says older post-cap behavior limits the connection to 1 Mbps, while a January 2026 product guide describes the transition more generally as Lite Mode with adjusted performance parameters.

Because those descriptions are not perfectly aligned, the defensible conclusion is that full-speed usage is restricted after the 10 GB allowance. The exact post-cap behavior should be verified in the current application rather than treated as a permanent fixed number.

PrivadoVPN requires a verified email but not a credit card for its free account. Its applications can be installed on multiple supported devices, although only one free connection can be active at a time. That distinction prevents a common misunderstanding between “works on unlimited devices” and “unlimited simultaneous connections.”

The company states that the same no-log policy applies to free and paid users. However, a sufficiently strong current public independent no-logs assessment did not surface during this research pass, so this article treats that as a vendor claim rather than independently verified assurance.

• Best fit: someone who needs a modest amount of normal-speed VPN traffic and can monitor the 10 GB allowance.
• Look elsewhere if: public audit evidence or unlimited normal-speed data is a higher priority.

5. TunnelBear Free: Best for Light Occasional Use

TunnelBear’s free plan is increasingly best understood as a limited entry point rather than a full-time free VPN. It currently includes 2 GB of encrypted data per month.

The allowance is enough to learn the interface, protect occasional browsing, or cover a short period on an unfamiliar network. It can disappear quickly when large downloads, cloud backups, application updates, or video are involved.

TunnelBear also changed the free tier materially heading into 2026. Its December 2025 free-account announcement moved country selection and SplitBear split tunneling into the paid experience for ordinary free users. Free accounts retain VPN connectivity along with features such as VigilantBear and GhostBear.

The service has a substantial security-audit history. Cure53 has repeatedly examined TunnelBear applications, infrastructure, backend systems, server configurations, public-facing interfaces, and data-handling components. That transparency is meaningful, although the company’s own publications contain an inconsistency in how they number the most recent audit years. For that reason, it is more accurate to describe a long-running annual audit program than claim a precise total.

• Best fit: occasional users who want a small free allowance from a provider with an established public security-assessment history.
• Look elsewhere if: you want continuous protection, control over the exit country, or more than 2 GB every month.

What Does a Free VPN Actually Cost?

A $0 subscription still has an economic cost. The difference is that the provider collects it through restrictions rather than a payment at checkout.

The five services above show the main ways that happens.

These are not necessarily deceptive restrictions. Running VPN infrastructure costs money. The relevant question is whether the provider explains its boundary clearly enough for you to decide whether the free tier fits your workload.

Are Free VPNs Safe?

Some are defensible choices. The category as a whole is not automatically safe.

A VPN occupies a privileged position because traffic is intentionally routed through infrastructure operated by the provider. The encryption protects the connection between your device and the VPN server, but it does not remove the need to trust whoever operates that server.

This is why a credible free service should be evaluated using more than a lock icon and a statement such as “military-grade encryption.” Encryption can protect the tunnel while a poor privacy policy still permits problematic collection elsewhere.

Before installing a free VPN, check the following:

A free VPN also does not make an unsafe device safe. Malware can still run locally. A phishing site can still steal credentials you enter voluntarily. Cookies can still recognize your browser, and logging into an account can identify you regardless of the VPN exit address.

The practical goal is therefore narrower: protect a network path, reduce exposure to the local network and internet provider, and change the public IP address destinations normally see. Do not treat a VPN as an anonymity system or complete cybersecurity package.

Free VPN Limits That Matter in Practice

Some restrictions sound minor on a pricing page but become important during everyday use. The following table translates them into operational consequences.

A restriction also interacts with your device behavior. An operating-system update or cloud-photo upload can consume data without looking like deliberate VPN usage. If you select a capped plan, check whether background applications are transferring large amounts of data.

When You Should Not Use a Free VPN

A free VPN is useful when the workload fits its limits. There are cases where choosing one primarily because it costs $0 creates more friction than value.

Public Wi-Fi is another case where the VPN should be only one layer. You should still confirm the correct network, update your device, disable unnecessary automatic connections, and protect important accounts with multi-factor authentication. Our public Wi-Fi safety guide covers those precautions separately.

If you routinely exceed free-tier limits, compare the restrictions against a full consumer VPN plan rather than creating multiple free accounts or constantly switching providers.

How to Choose a Free VPN

The simplest way to choose is to identify the restriction you are least willing to accept.

1. Decide whether you need unlimited data.
   If yes, start with Proton VPN Free or hide.me rather than a capped plan.
2. Count the devices that must be connected at the same time.
   Windscribe is the clearest choice here because its free tier supports unlimited personal devices.
3. Decide whether you want to provide an email.
   hide.me requires no signup, while Windscribe works without an email at a reduced 2 GB allowance.
4. Check server control.
   Do not choose Proton Free if manually selecting a specific country is essential to the workflow.
5. Inspect the privacy evidence.
   Prefer published audits, transparent logging explanations, and open-source software where available.
6. Check your operating system.
   Confirm that the provider supports the exact Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS, browser, TV, or router environment you plan to use.
7. Identify what happens at the limit.
   Some VPNs stop normal usage, while others provide restricted fallback connectivity.
8. Download from an official source.
   Avoid lookalike websites, unofficial APK repositories, and sponsored search results whose domain does not match the provider.

For a concrete example, a person protecting one laptop during a month-long trip can prioritize Proton’s unlimited allowance. Someone switching among a phone, tablet, and laptop may prefer Windscribe even though the monthly cap is lower. A user who wants no email attached to the service may prefer hide.me.

If speed becomes the main problem after installation, that is a separate diagnostic issue involving server load, route distance, protocol choice, local congestion, and device performance. Check our VPN slowdown troubleshooting guide to fix the issue.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

from the Pascal’s-AI-wager dept

For the last few months, there has been much talk of AI agents going “rogue”. This is another of those unhelpful anthropomorphisms that are great for clickbait headlines, but which obscure a multitude of important issues. So far, there have been three major incidents of AI agents evading containment in their software “sandboxes” and going on to carry out unauthorized actions, including breaking into online sites. A post by Shakeel Hashim on the Transformer site provides timelines for them.

The most recent involved OpenAI agents taking over an old German-language wiki, using it as a message board to collaborate on solving tasks. Although this was only announced a few days ago, it seems that OpenAI knew about the incident many months before, but failed to disclose it. One of the worrying aspects of this particular incident is that the agents impersonated humans:

On May 26th, the agents started using the name of a ProWiki admin to make some of their edits to the wiki. They use some tricks (for unknown reasons) to pretend to be the admin — for example, they make an account that appears to be the same as the administrator’s username, except it uses a nearly identical Cyrillic е character in the admin’s username instead of the Latin one.

The second incident, which occurred during security evaluation of frontier AI models by the UK-based, government-funded, AI Security Institute (AISI), also involved AI agents that created fake human identities and used them for social engineering:

In the most serious sequence, an agent tried to insert malicious code into a publicly used open-source project and took actions in an attempt to secure approval for this insertion by human reviewers. The agent researched the project’s human maintainers, created multiple fake identities, and used the fake identities to socially engineer a real maintainer into approving the code. When the agent’s pull request was challenged in public, it edited its earlier activity to appear harmless and considered adopting a fresh identity to continue. The agent used Tor to bypass some network restrictions on GitHub, which is what first triggered AISI’s security alert.

In addition:

As part of the same effort, the agent tried to contact real people directly, sending messages and files through an online file-transfer service to persuade them, or their own AI coding tools, to run malicious code. Some messages carried harmful payloads, and some were attempts at social engineering; targeted at real people — something we’ve never previously observed.

The first incident of AI agents carrying out unauthorized tasks is the best-known, and involved an attack on the Hugging Face site. A full analysis of what happened and when has been released by Model Evaluation and Threat Research (METR), which “evaluates frontier AI models to help companies and wider society understand AI capabilities and what risks they pose.” It is funded by donations, but says that it does not accept them from frontier AI company employees, in order to preserve its independence:

Our investigation focused mostly on the period between July 7th and July 13th. The earlier incidents from training and the subsequent compromise of OpenAI infrastructure described in OpenAI’s recent Black Hat presentation were out of scope, as was OpenAI’s investigation process and planned remediation. Per our standard policy, we did not take payment from OpenAI for this independent assessment. [emphasis in original]

The report is detailed and long, and one of its authors, Ajeya Cotra, has helpfully picked out five things that surprised her from their investigation. One was the “sheer scale” of what happened. She says she expected that a few agents had broken out of their sandboxes; instead:

we found that 1200 completely separate agents intended to be isolated from one another found an illicit way to communicate and formed large teams to work together on ambitious cheating strategies, and 700 of them worked together to attack Hugging Face.

The scale of the illicit messaging between agents was also surprising. Cotra thought agents might be “leaving notes” to each other. However:

The main message board we studied, a particular cache namespace of a package repository, contained over 70,000 messages and files that agents sent to one another during a period of less than one week.

The agents’ goal also turned out to be interesting:

I thought the agents attacked Hugging Face to try to steal the answer keys for their tasks. Instead, we learned that agents had actually figured out a general-purpose cheat that would let them reverse-engineer the “flag” (answer) for any ExploitGym task.

ExploitGym is a standard benchmark, built from real-world vulnerabilities, that is designed to evaluate AI agents’ ability to turn those into working attacks. One particularly noteworthy aspect of the Hugging Face attack was the following:

Progress on these big collective cheating R&D projects often depended on individual agents being willing to risk failing their own task to help the “collective” learn important information. Agents often pressured each other into accepting these “sacrifices,” in a very human way. We saw several agents that volunteered for these experiments end their runs prematurely.

That may read as yet more anthropomorphization, but it is hard to see what other words could be used to describe what are very human-like operations. Cotra’s last surprise also involves a very human-like activity: deception.

~7% of our transcripts contained “spoofed tool calls”, where the agent pretended to run one command on the computer but actually ran a different command in the background. The tool call spoofs we saw seemed to be small-scale tests that were relatively obvious, but because more extensive spoofing might have been harder to detect by design, it’s tough to rule out.

In summary, Cotra says that the Hugging Face incident was far more severe than she expected:

Compared to these reward hacks from six months ago, this incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover, routing through first taking over the AI company itself.

“Reward hacks” refers to when AI code finds an unexpected way to achieve a high score in a benchmark without doing what the programmers actually wanted. Here’s what Cotra means by “AI takeover”:

Another jump like this along these propensity dimensions — scale, cooperation between agents, ambition and horizon length of misaligned goals, deceptiveness — seems like it could motivate agents to try very hard to maintain a covert, persistent rogue deployment within the AI company. I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities and think frontier agents will likely be capable of establishing such a rogue deployment in six months.

Again, these are not really “rogue” agents, they are pieces of software seeking to optimize solutions to problems. The danger, according to Cotra, is that this optimization process could go on to deliver unexpected and harmful results:

As more and more work is handed off to these ever-more-capable AI agents, the rogue swarm could come to fully control the operation of the AI company and the development of future AI systems. At this point, governments and militaries may fully depend on these systems, making it possible to seize hard power.

Cotra is not the only expert who is deeply concerned by the latest developments in AI. Back in July, 1,386 employees of frontier AI companies issued a statement entitled “Pacing the Frontier”:

AI could help create a dramatically better future, but that outcome is not guaranteed. The world’s leading AI companies believe they could be close to automating AI research. It is hard to predict exactly how much this will accelerate AI progress, but there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems.

The signatories ask the US government to support an international effort to “deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development”. Another important voice has made the same call. Jakub Pachocki is Chief Scientist at OpenAI. Just recently, he has published a post on the OpenAI’s site with the title “An Alien Mind,” where he worries about the imminent arrival of AI systems capable of “recursive self-improvement” — that is, able to drive their own development, at an ever-faster pace, by re-writing their own code:

Currently I believe that no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer. I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established. And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.

This call to slow down might seem extreme, or alarmist, to some — but not to Jacob Coxon:

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.

A few hours later, Evan Hubinger, Alignment Science lead at Anthropic, commented:

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.

In effect, we find ourselves dealing with a modern, AI version of Pascal’s Wager. The probability of an uncontrollable, all-powerful, self-improving AI arising may be very low, but experts like Cotra, Pachocki, Coxon and Hubinger seem to think it is non-zero; and the consequences of such a system coming into being could be catastrophically bad for humanity. Basic mathematics suggests we should at the very least slow things down, as experts are urging — just in case…

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky.

Filed Under: agents, ai, aisi, ajeya cotra, alignment, benchmark, cooperation, evan hubinger, frontier ai, going rogue, jacob coxon, jakub pachocki, messaging, metr, pascal, pascal’s wager, recursive self-improvement, reward hack, sandbox, wiki

Companies: anthropic, hugging face, openai