469
Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links (arstechnica.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

original, saw this somewhere else too. ddos stuff. this one blames ru for archive.today mess. sounds about right. didn' intend it to look like an announcement here. it kind of did. post based on ars story, apparently. who knows

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 8 months ago (15 children)

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that he only did this in response to a malicious dox attempt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    He only modified archived pages in response to a dox attempt?

    And the thing is, the discovery of the modified pages revealed that it wasn’t even the first time he’d modified pages. And he used a real person’s identity to try and shift blame.

    Irrespective of the doxxing allegations, if he’s done all this multiple times already, it means the page archives can’t be trusted AND there’s no guarantee that anything archived with the service will be available tomorrow.

    Seems like we need to switch to URLs that contain the SHA256 of the page they’re linking to, so we can tell if anything has changed since the link was created.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Actually a pretty good idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Only works for archived pages though, because for any regular page, a large portion of the page will be dynamically generated; hashing the HTML will only say the framework hasn’t changed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    You would need a way of verifying that the SHA256 is a true copy of the site at the time though and not a faked page. You could do something like have a distributed network of archives that coordinate archival at the same time and then using the SHA256 then be able to see which archives fetched exactly the same page at the same time through some search functionality. I mean if addons are already being used for doing the crawling then we may be mostly there already since said addons would just need to certify their archive and after that they can discard the actual copy of the page. You need need a way to validate those workers though since a bad actor could just run a whole bunch at the same time to legitimise a fake archival.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago*

    The idea is to verify the archival copy’s URL, not to verify the original content. So yes, a server could push different content to the archiver than to people, or vary by region, or an AitM could modify the content as it goes out to the archiver. But adding the sha256 in the URL query parameter means that if someone publishes a link to an archive copy online, anyone else using the link can know they’re looking at the same content the other person was referencing.

    If the archive content changes, that URL will be invalid; if someone uses a fake hash, the URL will be invalid (which is why MD5 wouldn’t be appropriate).

    The beauty of this technique is that query parameters are generally ignored if unsupported by the web server, so any archival service could start using this technique today, and all it would require is a browser extension to validate the parameter.

    Link it to something like Web of Trust, and you’ve solved the separate issue you described.

    In fact, this is a feature WoT could add to their extension today, and it would “Just Work”. For that matter, Archive.org could add it to their extension today, too.

    Remind me to ping Jason about that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Seems like we need to switch to URLs that contain the SHA256 of the page they’re linking to, so we can tell if anything has changed since the link was created.

    IPFS says hi

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yes; the problem IPFS has is the same problem IPv6 has.

    The hash-in-a-URL solution can function cleanly in the background on top of what people already use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    Unfortunately, they shot themselves in the foot by responding the way they did. They basically did the job of anyone who wants them taken down and not trusted. It was probably the worst way they could have reacted. Such a tragedy to lose such a valuable website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    As they should since it doesn't matter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago*

    Yeah, someone being shitty to you doesn't mean go you full-fledged shitty in return, it kind of proves your lack of trustworthiness to begin with. It's like Nazis being like "leftists were mean to me by explaining how my politics made me a Nazi, so I'm gonna show them by Nazi-ing even harder! They forced me to be like this!" It kind of betrays the argument that the reason you got that way was because leftists were mean to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yeah, ESH. His response of editing an archive showed the site to be unreliable as an archive. DDOSing from the site as a counter to the dox attempt caused the site serious reputational harm as well.

    It sucks because his site was actually more reliable than The Internet Archive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent