Call: 1-877-697-2926

What is a Botnet 2025? Networks Gone Bad

Think of a bot as a piece of software designed to carry out repetitive tasks automatically—anything from indexing web pages to chatting with users. On their own, bots can serve helpful purposes. When harnessed maliciously, however, the story changes. A botnet forms when an attacker infects multiple computers with malware, turning them into bots under remote control. This collection of compromised machines operates as a network, quietly executing commands from a central server without the knowledge of their owners.

Each infected device, commonly referred to as a zombie, becomes part of a larger system that's capable of launching scale-coordinated attacks, sending spam, stealing data, or performing other high-impact operations. The attacker—often a cybercriminal—leverages malware to gain control, while a command-and-control (C2) server distributes instructions, ensuring synchronized execution. The result? A web of compromised systems executing the will of a remote operator, often with devastating precision. This intent, combined with the ability to amplify disruption across global networks, is what makes a botnet inherently malicious.

Behind the Scenes: How Botnets Work

Infection Phase: Turning Devices into Bots

Every botnet begins with a compromised device—often called a "zombie" or simply a "bot." The infection doesn't happen by chance. It starts when malware slips into a system, typically through phishing emails, dangerous file downloads, or by visiting compromised websites. One careless click on a disguised email attachment or a deceptive link can open the floodgates for malicious code.

Some attackers disguise malware as software updates; others embed it in macro-enabled Office documents. Once executed, the malware silently installs itself, gaining control while remaining invisible to the victim. Antivirus programs might miss it. System performance may not even change. Yet, in the background, the device becomes a tool in a much larger criminal enterprise.

Connection Phase: Building the Hive

After infection, the real orchestration begins. The compromised device reaches out to a central hub—the Command & Control (C&C) server. This server, often hidden behind layers of proxies or located in foreign jurisdictions, acts as the control panel for the attacker.

Whether using HTTP, IRC, P2P, or custom protocols, the new bot sends a signal: it's online and ready for instructions. The attacker can now monitor, manage, and update the bot remotely. This phase transforms a loose group of infected systems into a cohesive, responsive network.

The architecture of the connection varies. Some botnets rely on a centralized model, where each bot communicates directly with a central server. Others use a decentralized or peer-to-peer approach, making the network more resilient to shutdown attempts. In either case, the connection enables real-time control and adaptability.

Execution Phase: Activating the Attack

With command established, the attacker can launch any number of coordinated activities. Common operations include:

These attacks can be launched on demand, staggered over time, or operated continuously. The botnet obeys instantly, often without any visible clue to the device’s actual owner. Behind a single command, thousands of machines perform precise tasks—malicious, distributed, and difficult to trace back.

Unpacking the Types of Botnets: How Attackers Engineer Control

Centralized Botnets

Centralized botnets rely on a single command-and-control (C&C) server to issue instructions to every compromised machine—often called a "zombie." This model offers simplicity and speed. Operators can disseminate code updates, reconfigure attack commands, or extract stolen data by communicating directly from the C&C server to the bots. IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and HTTP are common channels used for this purpose.

While efficient when operational, centralized botnets carry a significant vulnerability. Disabling or seizing the core server can effectively neutralize the entire network. Law enforcement agencies have exploited this flaw in numerous takedown operations, including those targeting botnets like Mariposa and Rustock.

Decentralized (Peer-to-Peer) Botnets

Unlike centralized models, peer-to-peer (P2P) botnets ditch the single point of failure. In this architecture, each infected host serves both as a client and a server, enabling command distribution across a mesh of bots. Instead of communicating with a central node, bots share instructions among themselves.

This structure greatly complicates mitigation. Takedowns require identifying and dismantling a vast number of nodes, often scattered across different jurisdictions. Case in point: the Storm worm botnet, which used Overnet—a variant of the eDonkey P2P protocol—to resist dismantling efforts for years.

Hybrid Botnets

Hybrid architectures incorporate elements from both centralized and decentralized models. Typically, the network operates on a central C&C structure but maintains fallback P2P channels in case the primary control point fails or gets blocked.

This dual-layered design enhances resilience while retaining the operational simplicity of centralized control. Malware such as GameOver Zeus showcased this sophistication. It used a central server when available but could switch to peer-to-peer strategies when obstructed, frustrating cleanup initiatives and extending its lifespan.

Each type represents a different level of complexity and threat potential. Want to predict how effective a takedown operation might be? Start by identifying the botnet’s architecture.

Unpacking Malware: The Weaponry Behind Botnets

Trojans: Precision Theft with Stealth Operations

Trojans serve as one of the most favored tools for botnet operators due to their versatility and stealth capabilities. Among these, Zeus stands out. First detected in 2007, Zeus specifically targets financial institutions. It operates by injecting malicious code into web browsers, enabling it to capture login credentials, session tokens, and banking details directly from a user’s device. According to Symantec, Zeus was used in over 90% of banking malware cases reported between 2007 and 2010.

What makes trojans effective in botnet construction is their ability to open a channel for persistent remote control. Once installed, operators can execute commands, exfiltrate data, and install additional malware modules with minimal resistance from antivirus solutions.

Worms and Viruses: Scaling Up Through Self-Replication

Unlike trojans, worms and viruses spread autonomously. Their self-replicating nature enables rapid propagation across networks, which makes them ideal for building large-scale botnets in a short time span. A notable example is the Conficker worm, which infected approximately 10 million machines at its peak by exploiting vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows.

Worms often exploit unpatched system flaws, while viruses typically require some form of user interaction. Both methods boost infection rates but employ different tactics to reach scale.

Rootkits: Concealment as a Strategy

Rootkits are engineered for invisibility. Once installed, they operate at the kernel level, providing attackers with administrative rights while hiding their presence from both users and security tools. By modifying operating system components, rootkits can disguise active processes, files, and even network connections that the botnet relies on.

This ability to cloak malware activity enables a more durable command structure for the botnet. For example, Necurs, a notorious botnet that at one point distributed up to 5 million spam emails per day, used rootkit components to remain undetected.

Backdoors: Always Open for Business

Backdoors are premeditated entry points installed by attackers, allowing them to reconnect with infected systems at any time. These tools strip out the need for fresh exploitation, enabling persistent access long after an initial breach. Botnet malware often establishes encrypted backdoor channels that can be triggered through obscure commands or reserved ports.

One of the more sophisticated methods includes modular backdoors, which dynamically update their capabilities. Criminals use these access points not only for control but also for renting access to other criminals, monetizing the network through malware-as-a-service models.

High-Profile Botnets That Redefined Cyber Threats

Mirai: Weaponizing Everyday Devices

In 2016, Mirai changed the landscape of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. It targeted Internet of Things (IoT) devices—such as routers, security cameras, and DVRs—by exploiting default logins. Once compromised, the devices became part of a massive botnet capable of launching record-breaking traffic floods.

At its peak, Mirai generated attack volumes exceeding 1 Tbps. The most notorious incident hit DNS provider Dyn in October 2016, disrupting platforms like Twitter, Netflix, Reddit, and PayPal. Researchers later traced multiple variants of Mirai proliferating across open-source forums, making it one of the most recycled botnet frameworks in recent history.

Zeus/Zbot: The Banking Trojan Who Knew Too Much

Built for stealth and efficiency, Zeus (also known as Zbot) first emerged in 2007. It targeted Windows systems through phishing emails and drive-by downloads, silently logging keystrokes, siphoning credentials, and injecting malicious content into browser sessions.

By 2010, Zeus had compromised an estimated 3.6 million PCs in the U.S. alone, according to FBI data. It gave attackers remote access to bank accounts, enabling direct financial theft. Open-sourced after its initial takedown, Zeus spawned numerous derivatives including Citadel, Ice IX, and Gameover Zeus. The latter evolved into a peer-to-peer botnet, further complicating takedown efforts.

Emotet: From Trojan to Service Model

Originally detected in 2014 as a banking Trojan, Emotet quickly outgrew its single-function origins. By 2018, it had transformed into a modular botnet-as-a-service (BaaS) platform used by criminal groups to deploy additional malware—ranging from info-stealers like TrickBot to ransomware such as Ryuk.

One campaign in 2019 infected over 100,000 systems in just five days, primarily via malicious Word attachments sent in polished spear-phishing emails. The botnet continually updated its infrastructure and payloads, though law enforcement seized control of its command and control servers in January 2021. Even so, signs of resurrection appeared by early 2022.

Cutwail, Rustock, and Beyond

Each of these botnets introduced novel techniques, paving the way for more resilient and evasive networked threats. Their legacies persist in modern malware campaigns, which continue to build on their strategies for scalability and persistence.

Inside the Command and Control Infrastructure of Botnets

How C&C Servers Operate

Botnets function as distributed networks, but no action happens without direction from their command and control (C&C) structure. At the center lie C&C servers—specialized systems that orchestrate the activity of every infected machine under a botnet's control. These servers issue commands, receive reports, and inject updates into the botnet’s ecosystem.

Most traditional C&C setups follow a client–server model. Compromised devices (bots) regularly "call home" to a central server looking for instructions. Once connected, they download payloads, run tasks such as credential stuffing or denial-of-service attacks, and upload results. Inactive or silent modes are also dictated from this central control, especially when stealth is prioritized.

Role of Hidden Servers and Encrypted Communication

To evade detection and takedowns, attackers hide their C&C servers deep inside anonymized or decentralized environments. Hosting them behind Tor (.onion domains) masks IP addresses and hides location data, making attribution nearly impossible without significant effort. Some setups operate peer-to-peer (P2P), eliminating the C&C server entirely and turning bots into mutual communicators.

Encrypted communication channels shield both commands and outbound data. Many botnets use SSL/TLS tunnels to mimic legitimate web traffic. Others embed commands inside image files using steganography or obfuscate instructions through custom encryption protocols. As a result, filtering or identifying malicious traffic becomes exponentially more difficult for network defenders.

How Attackers Issue Commands to Their Bots

Botnet operators manage thousands or millions of compromised endpoints through command sequences issued via the C&C infrastructure. These commands dictate behavior: start a DDoS attack, harvest credentials, send spam, or download additional malware. Commands are scripted and formatted to match the bot’s malware strain, ensuring compatibility across diverse endpoints.

In some cases, bots maintain persistent communication channels; in others, they connect periodically at predefined intervals to receive new commands, increasing stealth and reducing traffic anomalies.

Advancements in C&C Techniques: Fast Flux and Domain Generation Algorithms (DGA)

C&C infrastructure evolves to resist takedowns, with attackers adopting techniques that distribute or mask the server’s location. Fast Flux is one such method. By constantly rotating IP addresses associated with a single domain name, Fast Flux networks prevent security teams from blacklisting fixed endpoints. DNS records are given extremely short Time-To-Live (TTL) values, sometimes under 60 seconds, causing rapid churn among IPs used.

Another advancement is the use of Domain Generation Algorithms (DGAs). Instead of relying on hardcoded domain names, bots generate multiple domain names daily based on an algorithm shared with the attacker. Operators only need to register one of the predicted domains in order to re-establish communication. Conficker, one of the earliest large-scale DGAs, generated up to 50,000 domains daily.

These techniques ensure that static security measures become ineffective. Defenders must now anticipate domain patterns or deploy real-time DNS analysis to stand a chance of intercepting bot-to-C&C communication.

Cybercrimes Committed Using Botnets: The Illicit Economy of Infected Machines

Botnet operators don’t build massive networks of infected devices just to admire their reach. These networks function as tools in a range of cybercrimes where large-scale automation, anonymity, and distributed power offer significant advantages. Below are the primary criminal activities executed through botnets, each built on the back of compromised machines.

Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Attacks

By far one of the most publicized uses of botnets is in DDoS attacks. When thousands—or even millions—of infected devices act in unison to send requests to a target server or network, the volume of traffic overwhelms the victim's infrastructure. In 2020, Amazon Web Services reported mitigating a 2.3 Tbps DDoS attack, the largest recorded at the time. The Mirai botnet, which primarily infected IoT devices, was responsible for a similar takedown of DNS provider Dyn back in 2016. These attacks often result in prolonged outages, reputational damage, and significant financial losses.

Spam and Phishing Email Distribution

Spambots turn infected devices into mass mail distributors. A single botnet may send millions of unsolicited emails pushing counterfeit products, dating scams, or phishing campaigns designed to harvest credentials. The Rustock botnet, dismantled in 2011, at its peak was sending up to 30 billion spam emails per day. Spamming operations leverage geographically distributed bots to circumvent blacklists by constantly rotating IP addresses.

Identity Theft and Data Breaches

Some botnets specialize in stealing personally identifiable information (PII). These networks monitor infected systems for sensitive data including social security numbers, dates of birth, and banking information. Once harvested, this data is usually sold in underground marketplaces or used directly for financial fraud. The Avalanche botnet, which functioned between 2009 and 2016, facilitated a multi-national fraud operation and served as a delivery platform for various types of malware targeting banking credentials and identities.

Credential Theft from Infected Computers

Keyloggers embedded in botnet payloads silently record every keystroke or form submission a user makes. Over time, attacker-controlled infrastructures collect login credentials to email accounts, corporate platforms, online banking portals, and more. In 2021, the TrickBot botnet was observed stealing more than 250 million email account credentials, leveraging browser scraping techniques and stored autofill data from infected machines.

Cryptocurrency Mining (Crypto-jacking)

Botnets have been quietly repurposed into cryptocurrency mining farms. By hijacking system resources of infected computers—especially CPU and GPU cycles—these malicious miners contribute to mining pools that generate coins like Monero, which offers strong privacy features. Since 2017, various botnets, including Smominru and MyKings, have collectively mined millions of dollars in cryptocurrency, all without the victim noticing a thing beyond degraded system performance and higher electricity bills.

Selling Access to Other Criminals

Control over a botnet translates directly into an illicit revenue stream. Operators lease access to segments of the botnet to other cybercriminals—a practice known as "botnet-as-a-service" (BaaS). Customers use the rented bots to spread malware, conduct click fraud, or launch their own DDoS attacks. This ecosystem turns every infected machine into a service node traded on darknet forums and encrypted messaging platforms.

The botnet economy thrives on invisibility, scale, and access. Each infected client becomes a node in a larger criminal machinery capable of global reach and local impact. From silent credential theft to headline-grabbing DDoS attacks, the crimes committed using botnets reflect the growing sophistication and integration of cybercrime ecosystems.

Exposing the Unseen: Botnet Detection Techniques

Botnets thrive in the shadows—stealthy, distributed, and often undetected until significant damage is done. Detecting them requires methodical examination of digital environments and data flows. Security analysts rely on multiple techniques to identify these networks long before their intent becomes evident.

Network Traffic Analysis

Every botnet leaves a trace in the form of anomalous network behaviors. By monitoring packet-level data, analysts can identify unusual volumes of outbound connections, frequent domain generation sequences, or consistent contact with known malicious IP addresses.

Anomalous Behavior Detection

Unexpected usage deviations often point toward hidden botnet processes. For example, a system that consumes more CPU while idle or consistently pushes outbound traffic could be infected.

Heuristic and Behavioral Analysis by Security Software

Modern endpoint protection tools go beyond signature-based detection. Heuristic algorithms flag code that behaves similarly to known malware, while behavioral engines track real-time execution context.

Intrusion Detection Systems and Machine Learning Models

Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), especially those enhanced with machine learning (ML), process massive datasets to identify complex attack vectors. These systems evolve as they learn from new patterns.

Have you ever noticed your internet slowing down unexpectedly or your device heating up with no active applications? These could be subtle symptoms of a system operating within a botnet. Detection is rarely straightforward, but each of these layered techniques contributes to peeling back its digital disguise.

Defensive Measures: Stopping Botnets Before They Start

System Updates: The First Line of Defense

Running outdated software creates predictable entry points for attackers. According to the Ponemon Institute's 2022 Cybersecurity Report, 57% of data breaches exploit vulnerabilities for which patches were available but not applied. Apply patches as soon as they're released—especially for operating systems, browsers, plugins, and third-party applications. Automating updates reduces lag time, closing those vulnerabilities faster.

Antivirus and Anti-Malware Tools: More Than Just a Checkbox

Modern botnets use sophisticated evasion techniques, but high-quality antivirus and anti-malware suites catch many malware strains in real time. Select a solution that includes machine learning algorithms, behavioral analysis, and threat intelligence integration.

Firewalls and Network Monitoring: Each Packet Tells a Story

Botnet traffic often follows recognizable patterns—frequent communication with external command-and-control nodes, port scanning, or excessive DNS queries. Deploying intrusion detection systems (IDS) and firewall rules tailored to detect these behaviors blocks malicious outbound and inbound data before threats can escalate.

Deep packet inspection, signature matching, and real-time anomaly detection are essential features in network monitoring platforms such as Zeek, Suricata, or Palo Alto Networks' Cortex XDR. Combine these with event correlation engines like Splunk or the ELK Stack to detect coordinated activity across endpoints.

User Behavior: Malicious Code Needs a Door

Once inside, many botnets rely on unsuspecting users to enact the final infection phase. That’s why operational hygiene matters.

Network Segmentation: Limit the Blast Radius

One infected system shouldn’t expose the entire network. By segmenting internal networks—setting up VLANs, enforcing role-based access control (RBAC), and applying the principle of least privilege—organizations isolate compromised endpoints before the botnet can propagate laterally.

Security architects employ segmentation not just as layout logic, but as a containment strategy. For example, manufacturing systems, HR databases, and financial data repositories should reside on separate subnets, each with distinct access policies.

Legal and Ethical Implications of Botnets

Operating a Botnet: Legal Risks and Criminal Charges

Launching, controlling, or distributing a botnet falls squarely under cybercrime legislation in most jurisdictions. In the United States, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) serves as the principal tool for prosecuting botnet operators. Under this act, unauthorized access to computer systems—core to botnet functionality—carries penalties including fines and prison sentences of up to 10 years for first-time offenders. Repeat offenders can face double that time.

European countries rely on laws such as the UK’s Computer Misuse Act 1990 or Germany’s §202 of the Penal Code, which addresses unauthorized data access and manipulation. Convictions for botnet-related crimes across the EU typically involve penalties ranging from two to ten years depending on the offense’s severity, impact, and scale. Authorities also confiscate equipment and freeze assets tied to such operations.

Innocent, Yet Involved: Victims Turned Perpetrators

Millions of devices belong to botnets without their owners knowing. Infected systems often continue regular functions while quietly executing scripts for malicious operators. These unknowing participants become accomplices from a technical perspective, complicating the legal narrative.

While authorities generally do not pursue legal action against these users, forensic investigators can track botnet traffic back to specific IP addresses. This raises issues around data privacy, consent, and the line between victimhood and complicity when infected systems are implicated in large-scale attacks.

Spyware, Surveillance, and the Murky Middle

Not every instance of remote access or network control qualifies as malicious. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies, for example, use software resembling botnets to monitor suspects. At the same time, commercial spyware tools—marketed as legitimate parental controls or employee oversight software—blur ethical boundaries.

These unresolved questions sit at the intersection of technology, law, and civil liberties. Courts worldwide continue to grapple with them as surveillance tech outpaces existing legislation.

Cross-Border Crimes, Fragmented Laws

Botnets are inherently international. Their infrastructure spans continents, spreading command servers across cloud services and hijacked systems in dozens of countries. And this decentralized nature creates immediate jurisdictional challenges.

For example, a C&C server may be hosted in the Netherlands, while the operator resides in Belarus and targets victims in Australia. Coordinated action between law enforcement agencies becomes time-consuming and bureaucratic due to differing legal standards, data protection regulations, and mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) processes.

Efforts like the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime lay the groundwork for cooperation, but enforcement still lags behind technological capability. Without synchronized global legal frameworks, many international botnet operators evade prosecution.