341–350 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, pschastain has malware on their computer. I just hit a ratelimit on another account I was using, and decided it'd be funny if I replied from their own account.
Sure, Jan.
It amazes me that people still use and recommend Cloudflare's DNS servers for resolution. Cloudflare DNS does not support EDNS Client Subnet. As a result, DNS queries resolved by their service are likely to return IP addresses for many CDNs that are physically farther away from you, leading to a slower internet browsing and viewing experience. Sacrificing performance for a faster lookup time makes no sense in 2026. T…
Without ECS, the CDN will default to the closest one to the resolver, and cloudflare has resolvers in all major cities. Given that the vast majority of us live in or near a major city, it means that your vaguely gloom and doom commentary doesn't apply. If you live in the boondocks or if CDN matching misbehaves for some reason, by all means run benchmarks! But all other things being equal, Cloudflare's privacy policy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attack? Did we read the same one article? One article is clearly defensive. The other is a piece of investigative journalism about who and how the site is run. Neither of those is an attack.
Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words can have influence and can come from a place of authority, which does carry responsibility. Words of a president are very different from words published on a random blog by some random person, and different yet again from words published by a newspaper. Some presidents words are opinion, the same words in different context are commands and not acting on them comes at a price. Context matters. Which is why also…
>DDoS is not an acceptable response in any jurisdiction Who the fuck cares about what the law says? Seriously. The service archive.today offers is illegal in any case. This is just a fundamentally bizarre context to be bringing up the law in.
Then, again: one persons illegal actions do not warrant another persons illegal actions. That’s not how society works, and not how law works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
People are painting this as a mutually exclusive ideological decision. Yet two things can be true: 1) The act of archive.today archiving stories (and thus circumventing paywalls) is arguably v low level illegal (computer miss-use/unauthorized access/etc) but it is up for interpretation whether a) the operator or the person requesting the page carries the most responsibility b) whether it's enforceable in third party…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what is the vector here? dns traffic is practically anonymous, there would have to be some very specific and purposeful trickery going on to link dns traffic to an identity. It sounds like something more hypothetical than a tangible threat model
> A Cloudflare Ray ID is an identifier given to every request that goes through Cloudflare. https://developers.cloudflare.com/fundamentals/reference/clo... if you think a little creatively about how this information could be used by an organization that was created at the insistence of the United States Department of Homeland Security, then you're on the right track.
Even the request ID is not what you’re implying: that’s unique for a single request, but it’s not public and anyone who has your HTTPS payload has equivalent tracking capabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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=…
I suppose “evidence that the site’s leadership has permanently changed” would convince me. Whoever decided to put in the code that causes visitors to DDOS someone should never be running a web site again.
And since the site stores unauthorized copies of content, I don't expect any new leadership would be willing to announce much more than a pseudonym.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure whether you're making a joke or confusing the two websites.
You’re just not at all familiar with the subject. Archive.org is awful . It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages. Archive.today does not.
Not true
>Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.
Also not true. However, Archive.today edits archived pages itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re just not at all familiar with the subject. Archive.org is awful . It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages. Archive.today does not.
> You’re just not at all familiar with the subject. Not true >Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages. Also not true. However, Archive.today edits archived pages itself.