Bitcoin Mining Botnet Found with DDoS Capabilities ...

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

⚡ Lightning Network Megathread ⚡

Last updated 2018-01-29
This post is a collaboration with the Bitcoin community to create a one-stop source for Lightning Network information.
There are still questions in the FAQ that are unanswered, if you know the answer and can provide a source please do so!

⚡What is the Lightning Network? ⚡


Image Explanations:

Specifications / White Papers


Lightning Network Experts on Reddit

  • starkbot - (Elizabeth Stark - Lightning Labs)
  • roasbeef - (Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Lightning Labs)
  • stile65 - (Alex Akselrod - Lightning Labs)
  • cfromknecht - (Conner Fromknecht - Lightning Labs)
  • RustyReddit - (Rusty Russell - Blockstream)
  • cdecker - (Christian Decker - Blockstream)
  • Dryja - (Tadge Dryja - Digital Currency Initiative)
  • josephpoon - (Joseph Poon)
  • fdrn - (Fabrice Drouin - ACINQ )
  • pmpadiou - (Pierre-Marie Padiou - ACINQ)

Lightning Network Experts on Twitter

  • @starkness - (Elizabeth Stark - Lightning Labs)
  • @roasbeef - (Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Lightning Labs)
  • @stile65 - (Alex Akselrod - Lightning Labs)
  • @bitconner - (Conner Fromknecht - Lightning Labs)
  • @johanth - (Johan Halseth - Lightning Labs)
  • @bvu - (Bryan Vu - Lightning Labs)
  • @rusty_twit - (Rusty Russell - Blockstream)
  • @snyke - (Christian Decker - Blockstream)
  • @JackMallers - (Jack Mallers - Zap)
  • @tdryja - (Tadge Dryja - Digital Currency Initiative)
  • @jcp - (Joseph Poon)
  • @alexbosworth - (Alex Bosworth -

Medium Posts

Learning Resources


Desktop Interfaces

Web Interfaces

Tutorials and resources

Lightning on Testnet

Lightning Wallets

Place a testnet transaction

Altcoin Trading using Lightning

  • ZigZag - Disclaimer You must trust ZigZag to send to Target Address

Lightning on Mainnet

Warning - Testing should be done on Testnet

Atomic Swaps

Developer Documentation and Resources

Lightning implementations

  • LND - Lightning Network Daemon (Golang)
  • eclair - A Scala implementation of the Lightning Network (Scala)
  • c-lightning - A Lightning Network implementation in C
  • lit - Lightning Network node software (Golang)
  • lightning-onion - Onion Routed Micropayments for the Lightning Network (Golang)
  • lightning-integration - Lightning Integration Testing Framework
  • ptarmigan - C++ BOLT-Compliant Lightning Network Implementation [Incomplete]


Lightning Network Visualizers/Explorers



Payment Processors

  • BTCPay - Next stable version will include Lightning Network




Slack Channel

Discord Channel


⚡ Lightning FAQs ⚡

If you can answer please PM me and include source if possible. Feel free to help keep these answers up to date and as brief but correct as possible
Is Lightning Bitcoin?
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Is the Lightning Network open source?
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Who owns and controls the Lightning Network?
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
I’ve heard that Lightning transactions are happening “off-chain”…Does that mean that my bitcoin will be removed from the blockchain?
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Do I need a constant connection to run a lightning node?
Not necessarily,
Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
What Are Lightning’s Advantages?
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Does Lightning require Segregated Witness?
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
Can I Send Funds From Lightning to a Normal Bitcoin Address?
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Can I Make Money Running a Lightning Node?
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
What is the release date for Lightning on Mainnet?
Lightning is already being tested on the Mainnet Twitter Link but as for a specific date, Jameson Lopp says it best
Would there be any KYC/AML issues with certain nodes?
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
What is the delay time for the recipient of a transaction receiving confirmation?
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
How does the lightning network prevent centralization?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
What are Channel Factories and how do they work?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How does the Lightning network work in simple terms?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How are paths found in Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How would the lightning network work between exchanges?
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges
Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
How do lightning nodes find other lightning nodes?
Stack Exchange Answer
Does every user need to store the state of the complete Lightning Network?
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
Would I need to download the complete state every time I open the App and make a payment?
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
What needs to happen for the Lightning Network to be deployed and what can I do as a user to help?
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above.
All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Is there anyway for someone who isn't a developer to meaningfully contribute?
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
Do I need to be a miner to be a Lightning Network node?
No -- Source
Do I need to run a full Bitcoin node to run a lightning node?
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source
LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
How does the lightning network stop "Cheating" (Someone broadcasting an old transaction)?
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-)
For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
How many times would someone need to open and close their lightning channels?
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user.
Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
Will the lightning network reduce BTC Liquidity due to "locking-up" funds in channels?
Stack Exchange Answer
Can the Lightning Network work on any other cryptocurrency? How?
Stack Exchange Answer
When setting up a Lightning Network Node are fees set for the entire node, or each channel when opened?
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Can Lightning routing fees be changed dynamically, without closing channels?
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
How can you make sure that there will be routes with large enough balances to handle transactions?
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
How does the Lightning Network stop flooding nodes (DDoS) with micro transactions? Is this even an issue?
Stack Exchange Answer

Unanswered Questions

How do on-chain fees work when opening and closing channels? Who pays the fee?
How does the Lightning Network work for mobile users?
What are the best practices for securing a lightning node?
What is a lightning "hub"?
How does lightning handle cross chain (Atomic) swaps?

Special Thanks and Notes

  • Many links found from awesome-lightning-network github
  • Everyone who submitted a question or concern!
  • I'm continuing to format for an easier Mobile experience!
submitted by codedaway to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

DNSBL is currently not blocking anything after recent pfsense update

I do not know if there was any update on the pfblockerng-devel package recently, as I just updated pfsense when I saw that it was available. After this update, DNSBL is not showing anything in the reports tab for blocks. The IP blocklists are working correctly, and when it reloads, it shows that unbound resolver, as well as the blocklists in DNSBL are loaded correctly. I do not know what could have caused this, and if I will have to re-install all of Pfsense to get it to work again. I have already tried to uninstall(while not keeping any previous settings), and then re-installing while re-doing all of the feeds in DNSBL.

TOP1M Final

33 33 1 0 0 32
[ Wally3kpersonal ] Reload [ 05/25/19 16:31:55 ] . completed .. Whitelist:||||||||||||||||
Orig. Unique # Dups # White # TOP1M Final
740 734 697 16 0 21
[ NewPihole_custom ] Reload [ 05/25/19 16:31:58 ] No Domains Found! Ensure only domain based Feeds are used for DNSBL!
[ Samsungblocks_custom ] Reload.
Orig. Unique # Dups # White # TOP1M Final
31 29 26 0 0 3
Saving DNSBL database... completed
Assembling DNSBL database... completed [ 05/25/19 16:32:07 ] Reloading Unbound Resolver..... completed [ 05/25/19 16:32:27 ]

DNSBL update [ 1654237 | PASSED ]... completed [ 05/25/19 16:32:28 ]

===[ GeoIP Process ]============================================
===[ IPv4 Process ]=================================================
[ Whitelist_custom_v4 ] exists. [ Abuse_DYRE_v4 ] Downloading update .. 404 Not Found
[ pfB_PRI1_v4 - Abuse_DYRE_v4 ] Download FAIL [ 05/25/19 16:32:29 ] Firewall and/or IDS (Legacy mode only) are not blocking download.
The Following List has been REMOVED [ Abuse_DYRE_v4 ]
[ Abuse_Feodo_C2_v4 ] exists. [ Abuse_IPBL_v4 ] exists. [ CINS_army_v4 ] exists. [ ET_Block_v4 ] exists. [ ET_Comp_v4 ] exists. [ Talos_BL_v4 ] Downloading update .. 403 Forbidden
[ pfB_PRI1_v4 - Talos_BL_v4 ] Download FAIL Firewall and/or IDS (Legacy mode only) are not blocking download.
The Following List has been REMOVED [ Talos_BL_v4 ]
[ Abuse_CW_PS_v4 ] exists. [ Abuse_LY_PS_v4 ] exists. [ BotScout_v4 ] exists. [ MDL_v4 ] exists. [ SFS_Toxic_v4 ] exists. [ CoinBlocker_v4 ] Downloading update .. 404 Not Found
[ pfB_PRI4_v4 - CoinBlocker_v4 ] Download FAIL [ 05/25/19 16:32:30 ] Firewall and/or IDS (Legacy mode only) are not blocking download.
The Following List has been REMOVED [ CoinBlocker_v4 ]
[ HoneyPot_IPs_v4 ] exists. [ Malc0de_v4 ] exists. [ Improware_v4 ] exists. [ LB_BL_v4 ] Downloading update . cURL Error: 28 Connection timed out after 15018 milliseconds Retry in 5 seconds... . cURL Error: 28 Connection timed out after 15002 milliseconds Retry in 5 seconds... . cURL Error: 28 Connection timed out after 15003 milliseconds Retry in 5 seconds... .. unknown http status code | 0
[ pfB_MAIL_v4 - LB_BL_v4 ] Download FAIL [ 05/25/19 16:33:30 ] Firewall and/or IDS (Legacy mode only) are not blocking download.
The Following List has been REMOVED [ LB_BL_v4 ]
[ Nix_Spam_v4 ] exists. [ SpamCop_SC_v4 ] exists. [ Toastedspam_v4 ] exists. [ DNSBLIP_v4 ] Downloading update .. completed ..
Reputation (Max=50) - Range(s) 185.244.25.|37.9.55.|146.185.236.|146.185.238.|64.154.80.|
Reputation -Max Stats
Blacklisted Match Ranges IPs Ranges IPs
5 877 0 0
Original Master Final
14168 12832 12832 [ Pass ]
===[ Reputation - pMax ]======================================
Querying for repeat offenders ( pMax=50 ) [ 05/25/19 16:33:31 ] Reputation -pMax ( None )
===[ Reputation - dMax ]======================================
Querying for repeat offenders ( dMax=20 ) [ 05/25/19 16:33:31 ] Classifying repeat offenders by GeoIP Processing [ Block ] IPs Removing [ Block ] IPs
Removed the following IP ranges: 212.27.35.|216.200.199.|207.246.136.|206.65.183.|209.132.193.|209.132.218.|209.132.220.|205.180.85.|61.135.131.|207.68.178.|204.253.104.|200.221.6.|
Reputation - dMax Stats
Blacklisted Match Ranges IPs Ranges IPs
12 359 0 0
===[ Suppression Stats ]===================================

List Pre Suppress Master

Abuse_Feodo_C2_v4 427 427 42824 Abuse_IPBL_v4 333 333 42824 CINS_army_v4 13730 13730 42824 ET_Block_v4 888 888 42824 ET_Comp_v4 498 498 42824 Abuse_CW_PS_v4 1 1 42824 Abuse_LY_PS_v4 1 1 42824 BotScout_v4 55 55 42824 MDL_v4 968 968 42824 SFS_Toxic_v4 83 83 42824 HoneyPot_IPs_v4 24 24 42824 Malc0de_v4 65 65 42824 Improware_v4 973 973 42824 Nix_Spam_v4 10323 10323 42824 SpamCop_SC_v4 195 195 42824 Toastedspam_v4 1775 1775 42824 DNSBLIP_v4 12485 12485 42824
===[ Aliastables / Rules ]==========================================
No changes to Firewall rules, skipping Filter Reload
Updating: pfB_Whitelist_v4 no changes. Updating: pfB_PRI1_v4 no changes. Updating: pfB_Abuse_PS_v4 no changes. Updating: pfB_PRI3_v4 no changes. Updating: pfB_PRI4_v4 no changes. Updating: pfB_MAIL_v4 no changes. Updating: pfB_DNSBLIP_v4 no changes.
===[ FINAL Processing ]=====================================
[ Original IP count ] [ 76449 ]
[ Final IP Count ] [ 42824 ]
===[ Permit List IP Counts ]=========================
 2 /vadb/pfblockerng/permit/Whitelist_custom_v4.txt 
===[ Deny List IP Counts ]===========================
42824 total 13730 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/CINS_army_v4.txt 12485 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/DNSBLIP_v4.txt 10323 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Nix_Spam_v4.txt 1775 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Toastedspam_v4.txt 973 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Improware_v4.txt 968 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/MDL_v4.txt 888 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/ET_Block_v4.txt 498 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/ET_Comp_v4.txt 427 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Abuse_Feodo_C2_v4.txt 333 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Abuse_IPBL_v4.txt 195 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/SpamCop_SC_v4.txt 83 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/SFS_Toxic_v4.txt 65 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Malc0de_v4.txt 55 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/BotScout_v4.txt 24 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/HoneyPot_IPs_v4.txt 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Abuse_LY_PS_v4.txt 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/deny/Abuse_CW_PS_v4.txt
====================[ Empty Lists w/ ]==================
===[ DNSBL Domain/IP Counts ] ===================================
1668405 total 1083648 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/New.txt 370231 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/BBC_DGA.txt 51684 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_urlhaus.txt 35526 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Joewein_base.txt 20185 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/CoinBlocker_All.txt 14305 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/MDS.txt 11617 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/adguard.txt 10810 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/SFS_Toxic_BD.txt 10347 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Shallamalware.txt 7616 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_urlhaus_v4.ip 5739 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/CCT_BD.txt 5431 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/SWC.txt 5367 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/adserver.txt 4410 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Shallalist_adv_v4.ip 4140 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Spam404.txt 4036 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Easylist.txt 3300 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Shallalist_adv.txt 3130 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/hpHosts_ATS.txt 2619 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Quidsup_Trackers.txt 2503 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_malware.txt 2009 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_URLBL.txt 1869 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/CCT_BD_v4.ip 1515 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/MDS_Immortal.txt 1293 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Cameleon.txt 588 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/EasyPrivacy.txt 560 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_publicite.txt 509 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/CoinBlocker_Opt.txt 493 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_marketingware.txt 456 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/MVPS.txt 317 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/ISC_SDL.txt 289 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/MDL.txt 280 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/EasyList.txt 267 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_ddos.txt 235 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/D_Me_Malv.txt 205 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_bitcoin.txt 205 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Adaway.txt 129 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_DOMBL.txt 78 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Joewein_base_v4.ip 76 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/BBC_DC2.txt 74 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_publicite_v4.ip 58 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_URLBL_v4.ip 32 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Torrentlocker.txt 31 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/SFS_Toxic_BD_v4.ip 31 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Quidsup_Mal.txt 28 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Joewein_new.txt 26 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/SBL_ADs.txt 25 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_bitcoin_v4.ip 25 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Lockyrw.txt 21 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Wally3kpersonal.txt 15 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Yoyo.txt 5 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/EasyList_v4.ip 5 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/ADs_custom.txt 3 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Samsungblocks_custom.txt 2 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_Zeus_BD.txt 2 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_CW_C2.txt 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/UT1_marketingware_v4.ip 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/NoCoin.txt 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/MoneroMiner.txt 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Malc0de.txt 1 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/EasyPrivacy_v4.ip 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/simple.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/malvertising1.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/hosts2.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/dgad.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/coinblockernew.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/adhost.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/adaway.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/ 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Teslacrypt.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Ransomware1.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/NewPihole_custom.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Malware2.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Malware1.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/H3X_1h.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/D_Me_Tracking.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/D_Me_Malw.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/D_Me_ADs.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Cryptowall1.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_TC_C2.txt 0 /vadb/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Abuse_C2_custom.txt
====================[ IPv4/6 Last Updated List Summary ]==============
Feb 8 2017 Improware_v4 Feb 21 09:45 MDL_v4 May 23 06:17 Malc0de_v4 May 23 21:29 ET_Comp_v4 May 23 21:37 Whitelist_custom_v4 May 24 23:35 CINS_army_v4 May 24 23:51 BotScout_v4 May 24 23:59 SFS_Toxic_v4 May 25 00:00 Nix_Spam_v4 May 25 00:05 Abuse_LY_PS_v4 May 25 00:05 Abuse_CW_PS_v4 May 25 00:05 Abuse_IPBL_v4 May 25 00:05 Abuse_Feodo_C2_v4 May 25 00:06 Toastedspam_v4 May 25 00:07 ET_Block_v4 May 25 00:07 HoneyPot_IPs_v4 May 25 00:08 SpamCop_SC_v4 May 25 16:33 DNSBLIP_v4
====================[ DNSBL Last Updated List Summary ]==============
Jul 31 2015 D_Me_Tracking Mar 9 2016 simple Mar 9 2016 D_Me_ADs Jan 20 2018 adaway Jan 20 2018 Adaway Mar 18 2018 Cameleon Nov 29 13:50 MDS_Immortal Feb 21 09:45 MDL Apr 15 22:17 Wally3kpersonal May 7 07:51 hpHosts_ATS May 7 07:51 adhost May 8 09:55 MVPS May 14 22:14 SWC May 17 12:21 Malware1 May 17 16:00 Shallamalware May 18 06:31 adguard May 18 06:41 Easylist May 21 06:13 coinblockernew May 21 06:13 CoinBlocker_Opt May 21 06:13 CoinBlocker_All May 22 21:57 Abuse_Zeus_BD May 22 21:58 Spam404 May 22 22:00 Shallalist_adv May 22 22:00 CCT_BD May 22 22:00 H3X_1h May 22 22:00 MoneroMiner May 22 22:00 NoCoin May 22 22:00 Quidsup_Mal May 22 22:00 Quidsup_Trackers May 22 22:01 adserver May 22 22:01 hosts2 May 22 22:01 Malware2 May 23 04:40 Yoyo May 23 06:10 Malc0de May 24 05:07 dgad May 24 05:07 SBL_ADs May 24 13:28 MDS May 24 16:00 New May 24 17:15 BBC_DGA May 24 21:01 Joewein_base May 24 21:04 ISC_SDL May 24 23:12 BBC_DC2 May 24 23:21 malvertising1 May 24 23:21 D_Me_Malw May 24 23:21 D_Me_Malv May 24 23:51 EasyList May 24 23:51 EasyPrivacy May 24 23:59 SFS_Toxic_BD May 25 00:00 Torrentlocker May 25 00:00 Lockyrw May 25 00:00 Cryptowall1 May 25 00:00 Abuse_URLBL May 25 00:00 Abuse_DOMBL May 25 00:00 Abuse_CW_C2 May 25 00:00 Abuse_urlhaus May 25 00:00 Joewein_new May 25 00:05 Teslacrypt May 25 00:05 Abuse_TC_C2 May 25 00:05 Ransomware1 May 25 14:12 UT1_bitcoin May 25 14:12 UT1_ddos May 25 14:12 UT1_malware May 25 14:12 UT1_marketingware May 25 14:12 UT1_publicite May 25 16:30 Abuse_C2_custom May 25 16:30 ADs_custom May 25 16:31 NewPihole_custom

May 25 16:31 Samsungblocks_custom

Database Sanity check [ PASSED ]

Masterfile/Deny folder uniq check Deny foldeMasterfile uniq check

Sync check (Pass=No IPs reported)

Alias table IP Counts

42826 total 15876 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_PRI1_v4.txt 13266 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_MAIL_v4.txt 12485 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_DNSBLIP_v4.txt 1106 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_PRI3_v4.txt 89 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_PRI4_v4.txt 2 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_Whitelist_v4.txt 2 /vadb/aliastables/pfB_Abuse_PS_v4.txt

pfSense Table Stats

table-entries hard limit 400000 Table Usage Count 154505
UPDATE PROCESS ENDED [ 05/25/19 16:33:33 ]
submitted by disguyisheren to pfBlockerNG [link] [comments]

Best Botnet (2020) DDOS TOOL  Mirai BotNet  Donwload FREE testing my bitcoin mining botnet MIRAI BOTNET  DDoS Tool  LOADING 10K NEW CONNECTIONS 2020 Botcoin: Bitcoin-mining on botnets (NDSS '14 talk) FREE IRC BOTNET - 100% WORKING,DDOS + MINER + PASSWORD STEALER 2017 !! WITH LINKS !!

From a recent study conducted by IBM, the Mirai Internet of Things botnet is being used to install Bitcoin mining code on computers of the victims. With additional investigation, they figured out that the Botnet has been used for some of the bigger DDoS attacks taking place in the recent past. The takedown of the DynDNS is a perfect example for such an attack. According to the experts, this is ... Bitcoin Mining Botnet Found with DDoS Capabilities. Posted on:September 4, 2011 at 1:56 am. Posted in:Botnets, Malware. Author: Karl Dominguez (Threat Response Engineer) 4 Trend Micro recently came across a botnet that turns an infected system into an involuntary Bitcoin miner. Bitcoin is a digital currency that uses peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to track and verify transactions. Bitcoins are ... Bitcoin Mining Botnet Gets DDoS Abilities. Aug 26, 2011 06:16 GMT · By Lucian Constantin · Comment · Share: Miner Botnet used for DDoS. Security researchers warn that a recently discovered ... Interestingly, Bitcoin is no more the number one coin among cybercriminals. It is slow and requires high transaction fees. Monero has become very popular for its easy mining, and Dash is the best coin for ransomware authors. Here are the top 3 crypto mining botnets: 1) Smominru, the Biggest Mining Botnet to Date. Also referred to as MyKings, Smominru is a gigantic Monero-mining botnet ... Ein Botnet oder Botnetz befällt tausende PCs und nutzt sie als Spam-, DDoS- oder Mining-Bots. Wir erklären, wie ein Botnetz funktioniert - und wie Sie erkennen, ob Ihr PC infiziert wurde.

[index] [9968] [44237] [39096] [18215] [36290] [36183] [17586] [27409] [2455] [29651]

Best Botnet (2020) DDOS TOOL Mirai BotNet Donwload FREE

botnet ddos, botnet setup, botnet spots for sale, botnet exploit, botnet archive, botnet android, botnet api, botnet analysis, botnet attack kali linux, botnet animation, botnet apk, botnet attack ... How to BitCoin mine using fast ASIC mining hardware - Duration: 27:15. ... Understanding Botnets and DDOS attacks for dummies - Duration: 7:01. quanzatv 126,765 views. 7:01. How Car Dealerships ... Mirai BotNet DDos attack 2020 DOWNLOAD: Thanks for supports! Thanks for Watching! Mirai BotNet DDos attack 2020 DOWNLOAD: -----­­-----­-­-----­--­----- Thanks for supports! Thanks for Watching ... Bitcoin Miner Malware Incredibly Stealthy! - Duration: 3:58. The PC Security ... Anonymous Super Botnet FREE POWERFUL DDoS BOTNET DOWNLOAD - Duration: 4:38. Super Botnet 68,699 views. 4:38 . IRC ...