If you saw the state of hidden web, you would agree.
There are very few hidden services and most of them are... questionable.
The article cites child porn. That's about right.
There are very few hidden services and most of them are... questionable.
The article cites child porn. That's about right.
It definitely referenced it when I first read the article.
I wonder what the motivation would be for removing that reference.
EDIT: Note that I am not user "runn1ng"; I am corroborating what they referenced about the contents of the article
EDIT2: They even mentioned three-or-so specific forums or websites, or something.
This adds speculation and sensationalism on top of an ill informed article. They even defined it as a 0-day vulnerability, when it is obviously not the case as explained by the article itself. Can't simply trust the quality of the information in there.