Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down • Hacker News Board

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#151

Post by dejaime » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #150

dejaime wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were not hosting any CP. That is not proven. As it stands, this is a simple service takedown. Actually, this is speculation added by the sensationalist https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com website, the original source doesn't even mention it. I mean, they even believe this is a zero day attack, I can't simply trust the quality of any information there. Edit: they updated the link, here's the old link - https://naked…

Again, if it walks like a duck. Freedom Hosting was the biggest service and it served CP. Freedom Hosting II was the biggest service and it served CP. Daniel's Hosting was the biggest service -- what do you think it served? CP is the reason Operation DarkNet et al target these platforms for destruction.

Yeah, and if his skin is dark and he has a hoodie, he's probably a criminal. This "if I think they are guilty it means they are" will never work.

That's the problem with prejudices, the people who have them can never see beyond them.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#152

Post by busterarm » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

dejaime wrote: post #151

busterarm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if it walks like a duck. Freedom Hosting was the biggest service and it served CP. Freedom Hosting II was the biggest service and it served CP. Daniel's Hosting was the biggest service -- what do you think it served? CP is the reason Operation DarkNet et al target these platforms for destruction.

Yeah, and if his skin is dark and he has a hoodie, he's probably a criminal. This "if I think they are guilty it means they are" will never work. That's the problem with prejudices, the people who have them can never see beyond them.

Sorry, no matter how much you want to defend such behavior, having preconceptions about people who host platforms that are welcoming to pedophiles isn't the same thing as having preconceptions about people based on their race. The former is a prejudice against someone based on their chosen behavior and the latter based on inherent qualities they are born with.

Also, I wasn't aware that "people who engage in or support child exploitation" were a protected class.

You're still trying to put words in my mouth, but by all means keep defending the despicable.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#153

Post by dejaime » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 2:47 AM UTC

dejaime wrote: post #151

busterarm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if it walks like a duck. Freedom Hosting was the biggest service and it served CP. Freedom Hosting II was the biggest service and it served CP. Daniel's Hosting was the biggest service -- what do you think it served? CP is the reason Operation DarkNet et al target these platforms for destruction.

Yeah, and if his skin is dark and he has a hoodie, he's probably a criminal. This "if I think they are guilty it means they are" will never work. That's the problem with prejudices, the people who have them can never see beyond them.

They did not welcome, protect, support nor engage in child pornography.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#154

Post by mirimir » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

xena wrote: post #132

mirimir wrote: post #67

If I were going to attempt such an .onion hosting setup, I'd use a couple levels of isolation between users. Maybe setup several KVM domains, to help limit damage from a compromise. And within each domain, put each website in a Docker container. Given a custom Docker-optimized kernel for the host, and XFS storage, I gather that it's possible to set hard limits on CPU, RAM and storage for containers. Given that Docker…

What's stopping you from writing this then?

Writing? Do you mean implementing? Basically, the prospect of managing thousands of accounts doesn't appeal to me.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#155

Post by mirimir » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 3:10 AM UTC

krageon wrote: post #135

mirimir wrote: post #67

If I were going to attempt such an .onion hosting setup, I'd use a couple levels of isolation between users. Maybe setup several KVM domains, to help limit damage from a compromise. And within each domain, put each website in a Docker container. Given a custom Docker-optimized kernel for the host, and XFS storage, I gather that it's possible to set hard limits on CPU, RAM and storage for containers. Given that Docker…

Containers are not at all a security thing. If you really need that caliber of separation, you are looking at VMs at the very least.

Really "not at all"? Isn't that more secure than chroot?

I do agree with you that VMs, at least, would be more secure. But hosting thousands of VMs takes substantial resources. And when there's free shared hosting available, few would understand enough to pay the premium.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#156

Post by busterarm » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 5:12 AM UTC

dejaime wrote: post #153

dejaime wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and if his skin is dark and he has a hoodie, he's probably a criminal. This "if I think they are guilty it means they are" will never work. That's the problem with prejudices, the people who have them can never see beyond them.

They did not welcome, protect, support nor engage in child pornography.

hosting that very sort of platform welcomes child pornography as is demonstrated by every such sort of platform or service that's come before it and I'm not talking about just the history of Tor hosting here. We used to find the same thing with free hosting, chatrooms and shell accounts in the 90s.

It's already a matter of law (in most western countries) that hosts have some amount of responsibility for what users of their platforms distribute and that's why other hosting services aren't structured this way.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#157

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #106

jamieweb wrote: post #37

I guess that all of the private keys for the onion services will be gone too. Even if they aren't, they can't be used anymore anyway as they should be assumed to be compromised. I hashed for a month to get a vanity one, others have done longer. Did this hosting service allow custom private key uploads?

Is it wise to have a vanity private key in this circumstance?

I presume OP didn't mean he hashed until the key was his social security number and name.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#158

Post by palunon » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #145

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Passive consumption" enables the industry that creates this content to exist in the first place. It is not victimless. This is not a difficult concept to understand. That said, I agree with your point that these people need help and support and that blindly locking them away for looking at pictures on the internet is generally not a good use of resources.

Would you say there's a further point of distinction between someone who just looks and someone who shares it with others? I'm specifically talking about the latter case, even though I personally see no such distinction. I will concede your point that rehabilitation is a possibility, but a crime was committed and that help and support can begin in prison.

> that help and support can begin in prison

Could begin in prison. In most countries' prisons, including in the US and most of Europe, it can't.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#159

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #157

danieltillett wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it wise to have a vanity private key in this circumstance?

I presume OP didn't mean he hashed until the key was his social security number and name.

No but I assume he chose something that was of meaning to them. You really don't want to turn something that should be anonymous into something that could be traced back to you.

Re: Popular dark-web hosting provider hacked, 6,500 sites down

#160

Post by jamieweb » Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #159

brokenmachine wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume OP didn't mean he hashed until the key was his social security number and name.

No but I assume he chose something that was of meaning to them. You really don't want to turn something that should be anonymous into something that could be traced back to you.

Yes, the first characters are just my name. The hidden service is for my public blog, so it's deliberately non-anonymous.