4 ms·
Who’s Behind the Botnet-Based Service BHProxies?
- jcq3 4y ago[flagged]
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y agoSo its commercial monetisation backed by illegally obtained infrastructure?
- dzhiurgis 4y agoLike all residential proxies
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y agoSo they shouldn’t be reported on at all because they’re ‘all’ illegal?
- RockRobotRock 4y agoNot Bright Data (supposedly)
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoFormerly known as Luminati. They used to run Hotspot Shield VPN that installed proxy malware in exchange for a “free VPN”. There is only one company trying to do residential proxy services legitimately, and it’s not working out. People just don’t want to knowingly share their internet connection with strangers even when paid for it. Why? Because they don’t want to be accused of nefarious deeds and the liability that goes along with that.
- RockRobotRock 4y agoOkay, but the users did agree to it, did they not? They still operate earnapp which is similar.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoThe users did not agree to it. They are sharing their internet connection unknowingly.
- RockRobotRock 4y agoThink you're just wrong here. First, the VPN they ran (still run) is Hola, not Hotspot Shield. Second, with just a bit of research, I found that it was always part of the agreement that Hola could use your internet for this type of activity. https://www.zdnet.com/article/hola-a-free-vpn-with-a-side-of-botnet/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/hola-a-free-vpn-with-a-side-of...
- MonkeyClub 4y ago> People just don’t want to knowingly share their internet connection with strangers even when paid for it. BT WiFi is fundamentally that: BT broadband customers share (perhaps unwittingly) their connections with others, and it’s nearly impossible to disable. Also the Fon.com network is doing that on a much larger scale (https://fon.com/maps/ https://fon.com/maps/). But your point stands; who would actively want to be culpable for the traffic caused by unknown third parties? So it’s left down to ISP marketing to make it look as an added value feature (“you can have free WiFi everywhere!”) rather than a huge liability (“you can go to jail or be fined”). Wasn’t there a recent US case of this, where a couple was dragged to courts for CSAM traffic over their connection but caused by a third party? They got acquitted, but even afterwards aren’t allowed to participate in their kid’s school activities. Must have been on here in the past couple of weeks, if memory serves. Salient point is, even if one is acquitted, the social stain is hard to wash off.
- JetSpiegel 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y agoI would be curious about the ramifications, I can think of a handful of reasons to do this, namely geofenced online poker (legally grey at best) but I imagine most people that use these services do so illegally.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 55555 4y agoThe question isn’t really answered with much confidence. Perhaps a premature post.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoIt’s pretty clear to me that Abdalla Khafagy is behind it. Did you read the whole article?
- ackbar03 4y agoCool side hustle
- rand846633 4y agoNot op, but yes, after reading the full article it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the named individual is in fact the person behind the shady actions. Not cool to dox someone when one is not totally sure…
- nibbleshifter 4y agoKrebs is notorious for dropping dox on people based on somewhat questionable evidence. Its kind of his whole deal.