Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

radar.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 351 posts

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#291

Post by freehorse »

gyrovague-com wrote: post #110
JasonADrury wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jani Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today. Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it curious that we know so little about this widely-used service, so I dug into it" [1] Archive.today on the other hand is a charitable archival project offered to the public for free. The operator of Archive.today risks significant legal liability, but still offers…

Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

Is the argument that it is "failed doxxing", or that you did not try/intend to dox?

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#292

Post by pschastain »

JasonADrury wrote: post #80
drum55 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should providing a public service absolve all sins?

So far, the only sin archive.today has been accused of is retaliating against a guy attempting to dox them. That's a pretty small sin in my book. To be written off as wildly unsuccessful but entirely justified self defense. DDoSing gyrovague.com is silly, not evil. The content on gyrovague.com which targets archive.today is evil, plain and simple.

[flagged]

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#293

Post by pschastain »

JasonADrury wrote: post #147
baal80spam wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> archive.today has a documented history of altering the archived content Wow, I had no idea. Thanks.

Archive.org has an even worse history of this, FWIW. It allows website owners and third parties to tamper with archived content. Look here, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701040026/http://echo.msk.r... Archive.today is by far the best option available.

Deflection rather than addressing the actual accusation

Pay attention to this type of behavior, folks. It's revealing

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#294

Post by fn-mote »

edoceo wrote: post #241
mat_b wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some experimenting recently and I'm quite convinced that when I use Comcasts DNS they are selling it to advertisers. I've switched to 1.1.1.1 simply because it annoys me that Comcast is doing this.

How could that experiment work?

Resolve the hostnames but don’t visit the sites. RefrigeratorFixit.com, StoveBrand.com, ConsumerReports.org.

See that you start getting ads for kitchen appliances.

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#295

Post by ricardobeat »

JasonADrury wrote: post #72
nailer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked blog contains a story about who funds archive today and they presumably don’t like being exposed.

[flagged]

Besides the article about archive.today, which doesn't expose much, I see one about Clash of Clans, and a random crypto product. Those are not 'public services', not sure how you can put these in the same bundle?

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#296

Post by iamshs »

gyrovague-com wrote: post #110
JasonADrury wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jani Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today. Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it curious that we know so little about this widely-used service, so I dug into it" [1] Archive.today on the other hand is a charitable archival project offered to the public for free. The operator of Archive.today risks significant legal liability, but still offers…

Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

I hate this. Archive.today provides a useful service for people like us in developing countries; without archive.today we would not even have luxury to read and document a lot of stuff. In our countries, hard disks are expensive and internet is not fast either. We don't have the luxury to just download; and so many useful Youtube video are just made private after one phone call from Police. Why take it away from us...

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#297

Post by viktoresku »

winkelmann wrote: post #14
dydgbxx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It’s accurate and if the owner has chosen to do this for months now, why should we ever trust they won’t again? Nobody should ever use that site and every optional filter should block them.

There's probably a worthwhile discussion to be had about what it takes for a site in this situation to be removed from blocklists. An apology? Surrender to authorities? Halting the malicious activity for a certain period of time? Regardless, another user reports the attack is still ongoing[1], so this isn't a discussion that's going to happen about archive.today anytime soon. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=…

That is called Chutzpah.

HN and WP and the top communities (alongside with Reddit) using AT exclusively for piracy making all the legal troubles.

Now the pirates require "apology" from a free service they abuse, threatening that they will stop pirating otherwise.

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#299

Post by sc68cal »

coretx wrote: post #298

Cloudflare is a clandestine intelligence operation run by a rogue nation. Just like spamhaus and many other firms that have ridiculous amounts of illegitimate and unchecked power.

Spamhaus only has this power because administrators opt-in to their service. It is useful, so people use it.

Re: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2

#300

Post by Lazare »

JasonADrury wrote: post #143
gyrovague-com wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

I don't see how this description changes the fundamental nature of your actions. Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing. It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it. You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do.

I'm absolutely open to the argument that Jani has does something wrong, but nothing you've said has really even accused them of anything.

If you want to define doxing narrowly (as it was historically) then I would agree that all (or nearly all) such cases are wrong, but this is by no means clearly doxing. If you want to define doxing widely (as is common lately), then I'll accept this is clearly an example of doxing, but note that there's nothing inherently wrong with doxing.

Just saying "doxing" does not establish that the underlying actions are immoral, and so it does not follow that the target not appreciating it is relevant. If I take the last parking place in a crowded lot, the driver behind me certainly won't appreciate it, but I have no obligation to give it up. If you think Jani has done something incomparable to taking a parking place, you need to make the case.

Post reply on HN