Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Underground services face a tension: they need to build trust and attract members while limiting exposure. A 2017 SecurityWeek report by Alastair Paterson described two forums that reportedly approached that problem differently. Its examples are historical accounts of claimed practices—not evidence that the forums remain active or that their methods worked.
What the report meant by insider trading
SecurityWeek used “insider trading” to describe the forums’ claimed subject matter. That label does not establish that every tip offered met the legal definition, or that anyone named in connection with a forum was convicted.
In a 2022 final rule, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission described insider trading, for purposes of that rule, as purchasing or selling a security on the basis of material nonpublic information in breach of a duty of trust or confidence. The rule addresses Rule 10b5-1 arrangements and related disclosures; the legal concept should not be conflated with every claim to possess or sell information. SEC: Insider Trading Arrangements and Related Disclosures.
How the two forums reportedly handled access
Paterson’s March 23, 2017 report portrayed both sites as selective, but described different entry models. The comparison below reflects that report only; it is not a current ranking or a verified measure of either forum’s effectiveness.
#1 Best Overall
| Forum | Reported access model | Reported focus and visibility |
|---|---|---|
| KickAss | Applicants reportedly described their skills and interests, interviewed with an administrator or trusted user, and needed three entities to vouch for them. | SecurityWeek described a wider criminal forum that claimed to host a sub-forum for insider information trading. It also reported more formal admission procedures. |
| The Stock Insider | Prospective members were reportedly asked to submit an insider-trading tip as an entry condition. | The report characterized it as more exclusive and focused on insider trading, with limited access that also constrained membership. A comparable amount of public discussion or advertising was not stated in the report. |
These details—including the forums’ claimed activities and the described skills of KickAss’s initial team—are reported descriptions, not independently established facts about their personnel, capabilities, or actual operations.
KickAss: applications, interviews, and vouching
According to the report, KickAss’s application process asked about a prospective member’s skills and interests, followed by an interview and vouching. SecurityWeek also reported a membership charge of 0.25 BTC per month, which it equated to approximately US$300 at publication in 2017. That conversion is historical, not a current price or an estimate of what membership would cost today.
Rank #2
The Stock Insider: a tip as the proposed test
The Stock Insider’s reported entry condition tied access to submitting a tip. Paterson’s account suggested this could help vet members while also restricting the site’s growth. The report does not establish how tips were checked or whether the process reliably distinguished useful information from false claims.
People, procedures, and technology in the OPSEC framing
Paterson framed the reported practices as operational security, or OPSEC, across people, process, and technology. On the people and process side, the examples were restricted admission, screening, aliases or personas, and formal membership procedures. The technologies mentioned in the article included Whonix, Tails, Tor, PGP, Bitcoin, WebMoney, and Bitcoin tumblers.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteThose names are historical context from the report, not recommendations or a guide to concealing criminal activity. Their mention does not establish that a forum used them successfully, and no technology or admission rule described in the article proves anonymity or protection from investigation. SecurityWeek’s subheading posed the issue as: “How do cybercriminals protect their operations while marketing them?” Paterson’s opening characterization was more succinct: “It’s a fine balance.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What defenders can—and cannot—infer
The report said researchers and law enforcement monitored underground activity and described threat intelligence being passed to organizations that might be targeted. For defenders, the practical point is that exposed discussions or offers can sometimes provide warning signals. But underground activity is only partly visible: what researchers observe depends on what actors reveal and what monitoring can reach.
The two forum accounts do not establish how common underground insider-information trading was, how large a market it represented, or whether the sites or their procedures survive today. The reported 0.25 BTC fee was a membership charge, not a measure of market size or prevalence. Treat the article as a snapshot of two examples reported in 2017, not a current survey.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Sources and scope
- Alastair Paterson, “OPSEC in the Underground: A Look at Insider Trading,” SecurityWeek, March 23, 2017.
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Insider Trading Arrangements and Related Disclosures,” final rule, December 14, 2022.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
