4 ms·

Roger doesn't understand botnets at all. The author clearly doesn't care about Tor itself, just his C&C server, which are more likely to get shutdown. Tor is ex

• j_s 13y ago
  Your comment was a bit confusing to me. I'm going to intrepret 'Roger' as the writer of the blog entry (not really clear anywhere on the page); and by 'the author', you mean the botnet owner? Then the portion of the blog post (at the very end) you are responding to: > > I still maintain that if you have a multi-million node botnet, it's silly to try > to hide it behind the 4000-relay Tor network. These people should be using their > botnet as a peer-to-peer anonymity system for itself. So I interpret this > incident as continued exploration by botnet developers to try to figure out what > resources, services, and topologies integrate well for protecting botnet > communications. Another facet of solving this problem long-term is helping them > to understand that Tor isn't a great answer for their problem. > > [- Roger] > where you believe the blog is mistaken on the botnet's use of Tor. You point out the intention of hiding the owner's control of the botnet vs. your interpretation of the blog post as claiming the botnet is trying to hide entirely behind Tor. My interpretation of the blog post excerpt is that the botnet offers its creator a chance to run a better Tor than Tor itself... with more nodes and the option of configuring whatever percentage as entry / relay / exit nodes.