Is this correct or backwards?

[GrimReaper 4740]

2 minutes ago, clinktone670 said:

I did try that, but to no avial. The remote access would not work.

Isn't that the point, that remote access through your WAN IP doesn't work, and it only works through VPN IP? 

[clinktone670 0]

No, remote access wouldn't work at all. It only seems to work with the above mentioned photo info. But at this time, not only does it work with the VPN address, it works remotely with the old, non-VPN address as well. I'm lost on that one.

[GrimReaper 4740]

1 minute ago, clinktone670 said:

No, remote access wouldn't work at all

Then you have something set up incorrectly. Your PureVPN client app should act as TAP adapter and once VPN tunnel is created it has nothing to do with your router port forwarding settings nor are any ports required to be open. 

[clinktone670 0]

Ah! So, I guess my question of, "Are the remote users anonymous?" is still in my mind.  And is there a concern that the old IP address still seems to allow remote users into the Emby server?

[Happy2Play 9780]

If you have port forwarding on your router your real WAN will always work and not be anonymous.

But the clients should be getting the shown Dashboard WAN address.  If it is showing your VPN address then the clients will connect that way. 

If showing your true WAN address it will connect that way.

 

[clinktone670 0]

No, it actually shows the PureVPN IP address on the Emby WAN Remote screen, and that's the IP address I'm telling them to use.  I'd just like to tell them that they are connecting in an anonymous way.

[ebr 16183]

16 hours ago, clinktone670 said:

are the remote users "anonymous"?

Anonymous to whom?  Them connecting to your VPN address is not going to disguise their IP address...

[clinktone670 0]

It may show them connected to my VPN, but I'm assuming that's as far as it goes.