Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

sambent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

#32

Post by tosapple »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #12
torben-friis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh ffs. Whenever I think my opinion on the state of the world can’t get any lower, things somehow manage to get dumber.

I mean this is a common pattern in many large organizations, governmental and non, if you didn't use your budget it means we can save money, yayyyy! I hadn't really considered it would apply to state-backed hacking but makes sense.

[dead]

Re: A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

#33

Post by margalabargala »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #15
torben-friis wrote: post #3

Man, I feel so out of depth with cybersecurity news. Why does i2p (per the article) expect state sponsored attacks every February? Where are those forming from, what does the regularity achieve? How come the operators of giant (I’m assuming illegal) botnets are available to voice their train of thought in discord?

> Why does i2p (per the article) expect state sponsored attacks every February? Because The Invisible Internet Project (I2P) allows government dissidents to communicate without the government oversight. Censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer communication > Where are those forming from, what does the regularity achieve? At least PR China, Iran, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait. censor communication between dissidents. > How come…

Sure, but why February and not the other 11 months?

Re: A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

#35

Post by charcircuit »

xmcp123 wrote: post #20
illusive4080 wrote: post #6

Why does Discord allow a server for a botnet owner?

Ever tried to ban a botnet owner from a service they want to use? It’s basically impossible. They have money, IPs, identities, anything you could possibly want to evade.

If you just look at the messages in those kinds of discords. It's blatant. They aren't even trying to hide it.

Re: A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

#36

Post by bee_rider »

xmcp123 wrote: post #20
illusive4080 wrote: post #6

Why does Discord allow a server for a botnet owner?

Ever tried to ban a botnet owner from a service they want to use? It’s basically impossible. They have money, IPs, identities, anything you could possibly want to evade.

It would be pretty funny if the age verification stuff blocked some of these folks.

Re: A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

#39

Post by conradev »

sandworm101 wrote: post #14
infogulch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting stress test for I2P. They should try to fix that, the protocol should be resilient to such an event. Even if there are 10x more bad nodes than good nodes (assuming they were noncompliant I2P actors based on that thread) the good nodes should still be able to find each other and continue working. To be fair spam will always be a thorny problem in completely decentralized protocols.

No. They should not try to survive such attacks. The best defense to a temporary attack is often to pull the plug. Better than than potentially expose users. When there are 10x as many bad nodes as good, the base protection of any anonymity network is likely compromised. Shut down, survive, and return once the attacker has moved on.

This is why Tor is centralized, so that they can take action like cutting out malicious nodes if needed. It’s decentralized in the sense that anyone can participate by default.

Re: A Botnet Accidentally Destroyed I2P

#40

Post by KennyBlanken »

pmontra wrote: post #34

This seems to be a better post about what happened, from the same site https://www.sambent.com/i2p-2-11-0-ships-post-quantum-crypto...

I'll save everyone else a click: AI slop text coupled with the strangest, most pointless visualizations I've ever seen.
Post reply on HN