Most VPN users install an app, flip a switch, and assume their traffic is locked down. But the standards documents that define how VPNs actually work reveal a set of lesser-known configuration techniques that can close gaps ordinary setups leave wide open. From private IP addressing practices that can help reduce leak risk to relay-based DNS designs that separate a client’s IP address from the domains being resolved, these methods draw on engineering specifications most consumers never read.
What IPsec Standards Actually Say About VPN Gaps
The common image of a VPN as a single encrypted pipe oversimplifies what happens at the network layer. The National Institute of Standards and Technology published SP 800-77 Rev. 1, a guide to IPsec VPNs that lays out three distinct architecture models: host-to-host, host-to-gateway, and gateway-to-gateway. Each model carries different exposure points. A host-to-gateway setup, for instance, encrypts traffic between a laptop and a corporate gateway but leaves the local network segment unprotected. Choosing the wrong model for a given use case is one of the deployment pitfalls the guide warns about, and it is a mistake home users and small businesses make routinely when they rely on default settings instead of matching the architecture to their threat model.
Key management is the other blind spot. SP 800-77 Rev. 1 covers IKE (Internet Key Exchange) considerations in detail because a VPN tunnel is only as strong as the process that negotiates its encryption keys. Weak or reused pre-shared keys, misconfigured certificate chains, and deprecated IKE options can all undermine an otherwise solid tunnel. The practical trick here is straightforward: users who audit their VPN client’s IKE settings and align them with the considerations discussed in SP 800-77 gain a layer of protection that no “one-click connect” button provides on its own. Within NIST, the Information Technology Laboratory underpins much of this guidance, while the agency’s broader cybersecurity programs treat correct VPN deployment as a baseline skill that organizations should cultivate rather than an exotic specialty reserved for large enterprises.
Private IP Ranges and the Split-Tunnel Leak Problem
One of the most overlooked VPN tricks involves the private, non-routable IPv4 address blocks defined in RFC 1918, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. That standard designates three ranges for internal use: 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, and 192.168.0.0/16, and it explicitly states that routing information about these private networks should not propagate to the public Internet. When a VPN client assigns a tunnel address inside one of these blocks, traffic destined for that range stays off the open web by design. The problem arises when a user’s home router and corporate VPN both use the same subnet, say 192.168.1.0/24. In a split-tunnel configuration, the overlapping addresses can cause packets to route locally instead of through the encrypted tunnel, silently leaking data the user assumed was protected.
The fix is to pick non-overlapping RFC 1918 ranges for each network segment. A home router on 192.168.1.0/24 paired with a VPN tunnel on 10.8.0.0/24, for example, eliminates the collision entirely. This is not just theoretical. People who connect to hotel or café Wi‑Fi while running a corporate VPN can encounter the conditions that make this leak possible, especially when consumer-grade access points reuse the same default subnets. Careful address planning, combined with explicit route pushes from the VPN server, ensures that sensitive traffic cannot “escape” onto an untrusted local network just because two private ranges happen to overlap.
How Apple’s Private Relay Sidesteps the Full VPN Model
Not every privacy problem requires a full VPN tunnel, and Apple’s iCloud Private Relay demonstrates an alternative architecture that targets specific traffic types instead. According to Apple’s network guidance for preparing infrastructure, the system protects Safari browsing, DNS resolution queries, and some insecure HTTP app traffic. It routes these connections through relay servers using QUIC over UDP port 443 with TLS 1.3, and it is designed to provide an IP address associated with a broader geographic area rather than a precise location. The relay infrastructure uses well-known hostnames such as mask.icloud.com, which means network administrators can identify and allow this traffic without creating blanket firewall exceptions for all Apple services.
The design choice to protect only a subset of traffic is deliberate. A traditional VPN routes everything through a single provider, which means that provider can see all of a user’s activity. Private Relay splits the architecture so that the first relay knows the user’s IP but not the destination, while the second relay knows the destination but not the user’s IP. This separation of knowledge echoes the IETF’s work on oblivious protocols and represents a meaningful shift in how privacy tools distribute trust. For users who primarily need to shield their browsing and DNS queries rather than mask all device traffic, this approach avoids the bandwidth overhead and latency penalties of a full tunnel while still preventing routine tracking based on IP addresses and unencrypted DNS.
Oblivious DNS: Encrypting Queries Is Not Enough
Encrypting DNS queries with protocols like DNS over HTTPS solved one problem, preventing network operators from reading query contents in transit, but it introduced another. The DNS resolver at the end of the encrypted connection still sees both the user’s IP address and every domain they look up, concentrating a great deal of sensitive metadata in one place. RFC 9230, the IETF standard for Oblivious DNS over HTTPS, addresses this gap by inserting a proxy between the client and the target resolver. The proxy forwards the encrypted query without being able to read it, and the resolver decrypts and answers the query without learning the client’s IP. No single party in the chain holds both pieces of identifying information, mirroring the trust-splitting design used by Apple’s two-hop relay.
This matters because DNS traffic is often the most revealing part of a user’s activity, even when application data is fully encrypted. A list of domains can expose medical interests, financial services, political affiliations, and social relationships. By separating transport and resolution roles, oblivious DNS reduces the ability of any one operator to assemble a complete profile of a user’s behavior. The trade-off is additional complexity: clients must discover and configure both a proxy and a resolver that support the protocol, and network administrators must decide how to integrate this traffic into existing monitoring policies without undermining its privacy guarantees.
Turning Standards into Practical VPN Hardening Steps
For individual users, the most powerful lesson from these standards documents is that default VPN settings are a starting point, not an endpoint. Checking which IPsec architecture a client uses, verifying that IKE parameters align with current recommendations, and selecting non-overlapping private address ranges are configuration tasks that directly follow from the guidance in SP 800‑77 and RFC 1918. On modern devices, these adjustments often require only a few changes in a VPN profile or router interface, yet they can eliminate classes of leaks that commercial marketing materials rarely mention. Pairing a conventional tunnel with privacy-preserving DNS, whether through oblivious protocols or carefully chosen resolvers, further reduces the amount of metadata exposed to any single intermediary.
Organizations can go further by treating VPN configuration as a professional skill grounded in standards rather than a one-time appliance purchase. Training programs aligned with NIST’s national cybersecurity education efforts can help network engineers and security staff understand how protocol details translate into real-world risk. When teams know why overlapping private ranges cause split-tunnel leaks, or how trust is divided in relay-based systems, they are better equipped to design remote access solutions that match their users’ needs without overexposing either traffic contents or metadata. In that sense, the quiet work of standards bodies and federal laboratories becomes directly relevant to anyone who relies on a VPN toggle to stay safe online: the more closely everyday deployments track these specifications, the less room there is for the kinds of subtle, persistent gaps that attackers and trackers exploit.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
