
hCaptcha report finds most residential proxy use fuels cybercrime
The study, entitled "Are All Residential Proxy Services Criminal Organisations?", draws upon several months of research into large-scale traffic across the biggest residential proxy platforms. Findings from the report suggest that between 30% and 95% of all activity passing through these networks is attributable to what the report classifies as blackhat or greyhat operations. This includes a range of abuses such as advertising fraud, manipulation of search engine results, ticket scalping, and mass spam campaigns against major web services.
Malicious activity and detection failings
hTAG's analysis asserts that legitimate activities account for a small minority of residential proxy network usage. Instead, traffic is mainly linked to illicit or abusive acts, with the report noting a particularly high concentration of such behaviour on the largest platforms observed during their research period.
The report further highlights a substantial limitation in conventional security tools, such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). According to the data, more than 90% of malicious requests funneled through residential proxies are not detected by these systems. The researchers suggest that this oversight allows harmful traffic to target online services largely unchallenged.
Industry structure and accountability
Another finding emphasised in the report concerns the apparent opacity of the residential proxy market. Although dozens of brands appear to offer independent services, the report claims that most resell access to just four core pools of IP addresses. This reselling behaviour, paired with layers of indirection, is said to complicate efforts to assign accountability when malicious traffic is traced to a given provider.
The report also describes an 'ecosystem' in which several proxy vendors openly promote their offerings in forums associated with cybercrime. According to hTAG, some companies in this sector maintain an appearance of legitimacy and have even secured venture capital investment. The report notes that proxy providers often source IP addresses via affiliate networks or through opt-in schemes that are not rigorously audited, with some addresses reportedly obtained from devices compromised by malware. "This is a wake-up call. Residential proxy services have long operated in a legal grey area. But our research shows that their traffic overwhelmingly serves cybercriminals, not businesses or consumers. The structure of the industry allows providers to profit from malicious activity while shielding themselves from responsibility," said a senior researcher at hTAG.
Impact on online sectors
The study outlines the wide-ranging effects of proxy network abuse across the digital landscape. The associated harms cited include ad fraud that impacts advertisers, manipulation of search engines affecting businesses' online visibility, and automated ticket purchasing that disadvantages individual consumers. The use of shared and rotating IP infrastructure makes detection and prevention particularly challenging for existing security frameworks.
Recommendations to organisations
hCaptcha recommends that organisations move away from reliance on traditional IP-based blocklists, which the company's research indicates are largely ineffective against the problems posed by modern proxy networks. Instead, they advocate for the adoption of more granular, session-level and intent-based detection methods to address these threats. According to the report, this approach offers improved protection for online services while maintaining user privacy and site performance.
Summing up the findings, the report from hCaptcha presents a detailed perspective on residential proxy networks, their current role in digital fraud, and the limitations of incumbent security strategies when confronting such abuses.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Report: Roger Goodell tells ESPN employees the NFL won't get involved with journalism
Pending regulatory approval (which seems to be hardly a given), the NFL eventually will own 10 percent of ESPN. That dynamic has raised obvious concerns that the NFL will parlay its partial ownership into the potential airing of grievances about ESPN's coverage of the league. As a result, the powers-that-be are trying to ease the worries of ESPN reporters and analysts who fear being micromanaged by The Shield. Most recently, that resulted in (according to Commissioner Roger Goodell communicating with ESPN employees at a town-hall meeting via a recorded message. Per the report, "Goodell emphasized to ESPN employees that the league would not get involved in the network's journalism." We have three points to make in response to that contention. First, what else is he going to say? "You'd better watch out?" It's a very real concern that the NFL will try to impose upon ESPN the same degree of conscious self-editing that NFL Network reporters and analysts have exercised for years. Second, it would be different if the NFL didn't already have a habit of complaining to broadcast partners about things said and written by their reporters and analysts. It absolutely happens. (And it may happen today, as a result of me pointing out that it absolutely happens.) The league surely has complained to ESPN at some point in the past about something that ended up on ESPN Radio, or any of the various ESPN networks. And that was before the league owned a piece of the business. It's naive to think the NFL will say nothing if/when someone on the ESPN payroll says something that someone at the league office doesn't like. Third, Jim Trotter. So while the league may not "get involved in the network's journalism," the league will surely have something to say in the aftermath of the exercise of it. Especially when it's time to renew the contracts of people who have a history of covering stories the league doesn't like and/or posing questions to the Commissioner that he doesn't appreciate. At a time when it's more important than ever to speak truth to power, this has all the earmarks of yet another situation where power will end up being spoken to truth. Not immediately. Not obviously. But inevitably.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 Common Banking Mistakes the Ultra-Wealthy Know To Avoid
When it comes to money, the ultra-wealthy don't just make it — they know how to keep it. And while most of us focus on earning more, they're quietly sidestepping financial slip-ups that can drain fortunes faster than a bad investment. The good news? You don't need a yacht or a private island to learn from their playbook. Trending Now: Find Out: Here are the common banking mistakes the ultra-wealthy know to avoid — and how steering clear of them can help you protect and grow your own money. They Think of Banks as Partners, Not Just Service Providers According to Bhavin Swadas, CEO of Squeal My Deal, a considerable contrast between the hyper-wealthy and the typical customer pertains to mindset. 'Affluent entrepreneurs do not see banks as a financial platform to deposit money — they regard them as strategic partners,' Swadas added. This implies that they go in search of banks in which they can get relationship benefits, and not necessarily convenience. They will then tend to concentrate funds on different accounts to gain a higher level of relationship, enjoy private banking services, zero fees and better interest rates. This is the point, said Swadas: They realize that volume and loyalty equate leverage. 'On that leverage, they secure more favorable rates — lower or no maintenance charges, free wires, increased ATM withdrawal, and special credit lines.' Explore More: They Avoid Transaction-Based Pitfalls Rich people ensure that they do not initiate transactions that attract unneeded transaction fees. 'These are the overdraft fee, the foreign transaction fee, and the wire transfer,' said Swadas. They have international accounts with no fees charged or use tanks to have a banking service with these bundled in for free. The existence of multiple checking accounts in various currencies or jurisdictions is also common, said Swadas, especially among people who travel or invest in a foreign land, which saves them from currency conversion and foreign ATM fees. They Maintain Buffer Accounts for Liquidity Rather than having a single account used to act as a catch-all, Swadas said the very rich tend to set up their finances in a variety of accounts that are more specialized. For example, they maintain an active checking account with an overdraft protection, a high-yield savings account with slow growth, and cash management accounts that are linked to investments and allow one to withdraw money without penalty. 'This system eliminates errors in transactions, bounced checks or surprise fees,' according to Swadas. They Use Private Bankers and Relationship Managers Swadas also noted that the ultra-affluent usually do not have to wade through the policies of banks. These institutions usually set up managers to exclusively handle relations with the ultra-affluent who check their accounts, update their clients on any changes in the policies and proactively eliminate or overturn charges. 'These bankers can really assist in this lifestyle structuring of their accounts, as well; for example, how to make large or frequent transfers without causing red flags or compliance holds,' Swadas noted. More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall 4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025 This article originally appeared on 4 Common Banking Mistakes the Ultra-Wealthy Know To Avoid Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Frequent Travelers Drive High-Value Opportunities in the US
New LoopMe consumer data offers insights into travel planning, preferences, and booking behaviors NEW YORK, August 14, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--New research from LoopMe, the global leader in brand performance, reveals that while a majority of Americans book only one or two trips per year, there is a high-value segment of frequent travelers emerging. These consumers are between the ages of 18-24 years old and are likely to book up to seven trips a year, indicating a growing opportunity for brands to build long-term loyalty with younger consumers who are more likely to travel and spend. The report also revealed that domestic travel remains the most popular type of trip booked (39%), followed by nearby weekend getaways (23%) and international travel (17%). Cruises (15%) and theme parks (12%) have also been listed as popular destinations for Americans. International travelers (50%) and cruise-goers (48%) are also more likely to travel up to three times per year, creating an opportunity for brands and marketers to explore. When booking travel, 22% of US consumers use direct websites or online travel agencies (21%); however, other routes used include: Travel agency - 11% Credit card portals - 5% Employer travel portal - 4% Additional key insights from LoopMe's analysis include Frequent travelers spend big: Frequent travelers are more than twice as likely to spend at least $3000 per person on each trip Most Americans book travel for leisure and family visits: Top travel purposes include leisure (29%), family visits (24%), and group travel (7%). "While most Americans travel occasionally, the real opportunity lies with frequent travelers to build long-term loyalty and growth", said Brian Bell, GM North America at LoopMe. "As the travel landscape continues to evolve, brands have the perfect opportunity to reach emerging, high-value audiences and drive ROI in order to stay ahead in an increasingly competitive space." Methodology LoopMe surveyed 6,409 US consumers between 27-31 January 2025 to gauge travel habits, preferences, and motivations. About LoopMe LoopMe is the global leader in brand performance, redefining brand advertising for the digital and app ecosystem. LoopMe was the first to apply AI to brand advertising and its Intelligent Marketplace, finding solutions to industry challenges that haven't previously been solved. With consumer insights and AI at its core, LoopMe makes brand advertising better, outperforming industry benchmarks for leading global brands. Our vision is to change advertising for the better, by building technology that will redefine brand advertising. LoopMe was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in the UK, with global offices across New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Toronto, Singapore, Sydney, Melbourne, Dnipro, Krakow, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. For more information, please visit View source version on Contacts loopme@ Sign in to access your portfolio