[anamexis]

Isn't the idea behind botnets that no one is paying for the bandwidth, besides the unsuspecting random people who have fallen victim to malware?

I'd imagine the pricing is quite disconnected from the price of "legitimate" bandwidth. But I don't know in what direction.

[ocdtrekkie]

Yeah I assume there's the initial startup cost of successfully managing to infect a large network of devices, and then the cost for any given use is likely "what customers will pay for it". If they are selecting out big money targets and focusing on gaming, I'm guessing the price isn't that high, but they also presumably know interesting a state actor in taking them down either by changing targets or bringing in enough money is bad for business.

[lukan]

The idea is, the botnets are in control of someone else. Who "owns" them. And some of those will rent "their property" for money, like they would legitimately own them.

[anamexis]

Ok, but that doesn’t change the fact that the price of renting them is completely disconnected from the price of bandwidth.

[lukan]

Depends. The more the owners use their bots, or let others use their botnets, the more attention there is to them and the less useful the botnet is (either blacklisted IPs or owners noticing).

And a little bit of malicious bandwidth is easy to hide, a lot not. So there is a price to bandwith to the criminal owner.

[anamexis]

Sure, but there’s still no link between what the botnet operator charges and what ISPs charge for bandwidth, that’s the point I’m trying to make.

Because the botnet operator is not paying for the bandwidth, directly or indirectly.

[pixel_popping]

it's not exactly, it depends on the provider, some services seem to display a cap in bandwidth usage.