Clearnet crime forum
Executive summary
BreachForums exemplifies how so-called clearnet crime forums oscillate between public visibility and law enforcement disruption: the site repeatedly resurfaced on accessible web domains even after seizures and arrests, complicating takedown efforts and exposing both users and investigators to new operational risks [1] [2]. Recent leaks and law-enforcement actions have simultaneously eroded trust within the criminal community and created intelligence windfalls for authorities, producing a cat-and-mouse dynamic that drives migration between clearnet and dark web spaces [3] [4].
1. The clearnet pivot: why a criminal forum would go public
Operating on the clearnet converts anonymity tradeoffs into tactical advantages: clearnet domains make recruitment, advertising stolen datasets, and public posturing easier than onion-only markets, and BreachForums’ multiple returns to accessible domains demonstrate that operators value reach even when it raises exposure to tracking by hosting providers and investigators [4] [2]. The historical record shows BreachForums replicated RaidForums’ model after that site's seizure, choosing clearnet presence at times and drawing attention from both cybercriminal users and international law enforcement [1] [5].
2. Law enforcement’s playbook: seizures, arrests, and international collaboration
Authorities have repeatedly targeted clearnet incarnations: U.S. agencies seized BreachForums’ clearnet domains in 2023 and coordinated international operations continued through 2025 and beyond, with indictments, domain forfeiture, and arrests of administrators cited in official reporting and open-source summaries [1] [6]. Those actions often yield immediate visible effects—a seizure notice, device and domain forfeitures—but do not permanently eliminate forums because of alternative domains and dark-web mirrors [1] [2].
3. Trust erosion and insider leaks: the forum undermines itself
The criminal ecosystem depends on perceived operational security, and BreachForums suffered “doomsday” style disclosures that exposed hundreds of thousands of user records, hashed passwords, private messages, and posts—events that cybersecurity firms and aggregators reported as materially damaging to user trust and the forum’s viability [3]. Such leaks serve a dual role: they fracture the community’s confidence in administrators while producing intelligence that defenders and prosecutors can exploit [3].
4. Resilience vectors: why takedowns are never binary
The lifecycle of BreachForums shows takedown outcomes are rarely permanent: operators can reconstitute services under new domains, mirror content to dark web equivalents, or use different aliases to manage continuity—moves recorded in reporting that detail recurring returns to both clearnet and onion-addressed offerings [2] [6]. The churn is compounded by internal strife—claims that instances were compromised or acting as a law-enforcement honeypot—which further obscures who controls surviving instances and whether a resurrected site is trustworthy even to criminals [6].
5. Signals for defenders and hidden agendas to watch
For defenders, clearnet crime forums present an opportunity and a trap: public domains make surveillance and infiltration easier, but adversaries often adapt rapidly, shifting to private channels or bogus mirrors to bait less-skeptical users [4] [7]. Reporting sources have incentives—cybersecurity firms may highlight seizures to sell services, some outlets emphasize sensational returns to drive readership, and operators sometimes claim kompromat to sow confusion; all parties’ agendas should be weighed when interpreting claims about a forum’s status [4] [2].
6. What the reporting does and does not show
Open sources document seizures, leaks, arrests, and periodic reappearances of BreachForums, offering a consistent narrative that clearnet presence oscillates with law-enforcement pressure and operator tactics [1] [3] [2]. The available reporting does not provide exhaustive attribution for every resurrection, definitive proof of who currently controls each mirror, nor a complete accounting of downstream harm from every dataset allegedly hosted—those remain gaps in public reporting that caution against definitive statements beyond the documented seizures and leaks [1] [3].