this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024

824 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

60021 readers

1944 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

824

The Internet Archive is under attack, with a popup claiming a ‘catastrophic’ breach (www.theverge.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I recently went through most of my accounts and randomized the username, with the thought here being to limit the likelihood of one site being compromised leading to accounts at other sites being compromised. I don't have to remember them due to using a password manager, so it's really no skin off my nose.

I'll use this as a reminder to everyone to improve your security. Some ideas:

use a password manager and use random usernames and passwords
have multiple email accounts, and don't use your "main" email w/ random signups - I use a simple mnemonic, like "-@domain.com"; so "[email protected]" or "[email protected]" so it's easy for me to remember, but unlikely for a lazy hacker to pwn other accounts (a lot of these are automated); my real email is "[email protected]"
use 2FA if offered, even if it's stupid SMS or email based; having any extra step can deter an attacker

Sucks that people are targeting IA, I hope there isn't any lasting damage and that this is a simple defacement/DOS.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (10 children)

For e-mails, you can just get firefox relay with your own subdomain and generate infinite e-mail masks for 1$ a month. I usually take "[email protected]" for example. It's pretty great because you just make the masks on the fly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yup.

If you use the same email everywhere, they can try brute-forcing the password by using the email instead of your username. Give them less to go on. $1/month is absolutely worth it to prevent an important account from getting hacked.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I used a 64 charcters unique password, so i don't think the bcrypt hash of it would be of any use for them.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Good thing I use archive.org without creating an account.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago

Spare a thought for the users with accounts who upload content to IA for you to enjoy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 194 points 2 months ago

I have no sympathy for those who attack and deface our libraries, whether they be physical or digital

[–] [email protected] 89 points 2 months ago

The corporations that took control of the Internet don't want us to remember.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Just got an email from HaveIBeenPwned.com stating 31 million logins were leaked. Email address, username, and bcrypt hashed passwords were obtained.

Edit: probably should have read the article before posting

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

How can we help?

[–] [email protected] 209 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I can’t think of any reason to attack that website, what have they done wrong?

[+] [email protected] -71 points 2 months ago (12 children)

I just sent a DMCA takedown last week to remove my site. They've claimed to follow meta tags and robots.txt since 1998, but no, they had over 1,000,000 of my pages going back that far. They even had the robots.txt configured for them archived from 1998.

I'm tired of people linking to archived versions of things that I worked hard to create. Sites like Wikipedia were archiving urls and then linking to the archive, effectively removing branding and blocking user engagement.

Not to mention that I'm losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive. I have fewer problems with archiving if the original site is gone, but to mirror and republish active content with no supported way to prevent it short of legal action is ridiculous. Not to mention that I lose control over what's done with that content -- are they going to let Google train AI on it with their new partnership?

I'm not a fan. They could easily allow people to block archiving, but they choose not to. They offer a way to circumvent artist or owner control, and I'm surprised that they still exist.

So... That's what I think is wrong with them.

From a security perspective it's terrible that they were breached. But it is kind of ironic -- maybe they can think of it as an archive of their passwords or something.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

About the only thing I can agree with you on here is I don’t like when people on Wikipedia archive a link and then list that as the primary source in the reference instead of the original link. Wikipedia (at least in English) has a proper method to follow for citations with links and the archived version should only become the primary if the original source is dead or has changed and no longer covers the reference.

They should also honor a DMCA takedown and robots.txt, but at least with the DMCA I’m sure there’s a backlog. Personally I’ve always appreciated the archive’s existence, though, and would think their impact is small enough that it’s better to have them than block them.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not to mention that I’m losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive.

No one is using Internet Archive to bypass ads. Anyone who would think of doing that already has ad blockers on.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Wah wah wah, my stuff's been preserved and I dont like it.

Not to mention that I lose control over what's done with that content -- are they going to let Google train AI on it with their new partnership?

Lmao you think Google needs to go through Archive to scrape your site? Delusional.

Not to mention that I'm losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive.

The mechanisms used to serve ads over the internet nowadays are nasty in a privacy sense, and a psychological manipulation sense. And you want people to be affected by them just to line your pockets? Are you also opposed to ad blockers by any chance?

I have fewer problems with archiving if the original site is gone, but to mirror and republish active content with no supported way to prevent it short of legal action is ridiculous.

And how do you suggest a site which has been wiped off the face of the internet gets archived? Maybe we need to invest in a time machine for the Internet Archive?

Sites like Wikipedia were archiving urls and then linking to the archive, effectively removing branding and blocking user engagement.

What do you mean by "engagement", exactly? Clicking on ads?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

What do you mean by “engagement”, exactly? Clicking on ads?

In SEO terms user engagement refers to how people interact with the website. Do they click on another link? Does a new blog posting interest them?

Lmao you think Google needs to go through Archive to scrape your site? Delusional.

Any activiity from Google is easier to track and I have a record if who downloaded content if it's coming from my servers.

The mechanisms used to serve ads over the internet nowadays are nasty in a privacy sense, and a psychological manipulation sense. And you want people to be affected by them just to line your pockets? Are you also opposed to ad blockers by any chance?

I agree that many sites use advertising in a different way. I use it in the older internet sense -- someone contacts me to sponsor a page or portion of the site, and that page gets a single banner, created in-house, with no tracking. I've been using the internet for 36 years. I'm well aware of many uses that I view as unethical, and I take great pains not to replicate them on my own site.

I disapprove of ad blockers. I approve of things that block tracking.

As far as "lining my own pockets" goes, I want to recoup my hosting costs. I spend hours researching for each article/showcase, make the content free to view, and then I'm expected to pay to share it with anyone who's interested? I have a day job. This is my hobby, but it's also my blood, sweat, and tears.

And how do you suggest a site which has been wiped off the face of the internet gets archived? Maybe we need to invest in a time machine for the Internet Archive?

archive.org could archive the content and only publish it if the page has been dark for a certain amount of time.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

archive.org could archive the content and only publish it if the page has been dark for a certain amount of time.

It's user-driven. Nothing would get archived in this case. And what if the content changes but the page remains up? What then? Fairly sure this is why Wikipedia uses archives.

I agree that many sites use advertising in a different way. I use it in the older internet sense -- someone contacts me to sponsor a page or portion of the site, and that page gets a single banner, created in-house, with no tracking. I've been using the internet for 36 years. I'm well aware of many uses that I view as unethical, and I take great pains not to replicate them on my own site.

Pretty sure mainstream ad blockers won't block a custom in-house banner. And if it has no tracking, then it doesn't matter whether it's on Archive or not, you're getting paid the same, no?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

SEO killed the internet. You're literally part of the reason why people go look for alternatives to viewing your website, no one wants ads.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

I don't think you know what SEO is. I think you know what bad SEO is.

Anyhow, Wikipedia is always free to link somewhere else if they can find better content.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Wait, people prefer the archived version? Too much ads?

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

In this case it’s looking like people trying to showcase their skill and possibly get bragging rights or at least a reputation for doing these attacks which they can use to earn money from others for these types of services.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

There's currently a fuck ton of hacking going on everywhere maybe just prior to the US elections maybe something unrelated but there's definitely a concerted effort to turn the internet on its head.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Dipshits thought it was affiliated with the US government and attacked it to "avenge" Gaza.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

We see this and think of an amazing and essential public service. A capitalist sees this and tries to find a way to make money with it, and the first step is to ruin the free product.

[–] [email protected] 168 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I have zero proof of this so take it for the musing it is, but the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine can be used to view articles that have been taken offline (sometimes for political reasons). The IA is a very accessible way to prove that once something is on the Internet, it's out there forever. I used it in a recent post to show an Israeli newspaper article that argued Israel had a right to not just Palestine, but Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other territories. It was taken off the newspaper's website a few days later, but IA had it.

This may explain why no one is taking credit, and there are no demands. Or it could very well be another reason, including people just being assholes.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

We just need to accept that there's terrible people in this world

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago

It's probably for the lulz I guess. There's only a few places left on the internet that are decent and good, archive being one, so why not shit all over it? People are so dumb.

[–] [email protected] 87 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is a bit like vandalizing a library. They are providing a valuable public service, leave them alone.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago

Yeah, and what kind of psychos would want to restrict public access to books in libraries?!?! I'm not on the conspiracy train until there's proof and I agree with your post. Just saw a bit of irony there since a lot of North Americans are currently in the process of dismantling libraries.

[–] [email protected] 177 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Archived something someone doesn't want to be seen by the world... like any and all since-removed misinformation for one...

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago (1 children)

tinfoil would suggested the media industry but this seems a bit more "personal"

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

It’s likely to just be some randos doing it for the lulz and IA was vulnerable for whatever reason. Book publishers have sadly been enjoying plenty of success in court against IA. They don’t need to get their hands dirty.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments