[HN Gopher] The Internet Archive is under a DDoS attack
___________________________________________________________________
The Internet Archive is under a DDoS attack
Author : toomanyrichies
Score : 456 points
Date : 2024-05-27 16:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (mastodon.archive.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (mastodon.archive.org)
| whatsakandr wrote:
| Clicking this link isn't helping them with their current
| situation. You'd just be contributing to the ddos.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| Don't worry, you can visit it through the wayback machine
| instead!
|
| oh wait
| mttpgn wrote:
| The link directs to an announcement via "toot" on
| mastodon.archive.org
| aaomidi wrote:
| Nope. This should have no impact on the rest of what they're
| doing.
| bhk wrote:
| Cui bono?
| niek_pas wrote:
| The guy from U2, I think
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| lol, thanks for the good laugh :)
| mitchbob wrote:
| Publishers.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| Why, what's the point in doing such nonsense? Unless it's someone
| with lots of money, contacts in the dark web, and some historic
| Barbara Streisand type chip on the shoulder.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| My thoughts exactly, what is the point of attacking a
| library... so lame... =/
| dxdm wrote:
| Maybe it's a form of advertising certain capabilities and
| services.
| neilv wrote:
| IIUC, that's always a good theory for unexplained DDoS.
| Though, even if they have only profit motivations, I'm a
| little surprised when they don't seem to let ideology
| influence their selection of targets for demos.
|
| For the sake of argument (maybe not true), let's say that all
| techies are aware of archive.org, and consider it beneficial,
| probably using it themselves.
|
| Why don't they instead demo against a target that will be
| proof of capability, and one that someone won't pay them to
| do (no freebies), yet one that they perceive as bad or
| deserving in some way?
|
| Probably improper to suggest "better" targets here, but I
| really wonder what's going on when some relative do-gooder
| gets attacked.
|
| Similarly, ransomware attack on a children's hospital, of all
| places? Doesn't that get you uninvited to criminal mastermind
| dinner parties?
|
| As Omar of "The Wire" told us, a man's gotta have a code.
| floam wrote:
| One thing to keep in mind m about LockBit ransomeware was
| it was SaaS -- errr RaaS -- and there is a good chance the
| target was picked by an insider there, or it was at least
| some opportunistic hacker not really associated with those
| who provided the service, besides signing up as an
| affiliate.
|
| LockBit was so successful partly because they didn't have
| to hack anyone themselves. It was basically something
| advertised "Got SSH or RDP access? Let's make a bunch of
| money."
|
| This attracted hackers who might not trust themselves to do
| the extortion part safely, as well as people who didn't
| actually hack anything but hated their boss, wanted a
| payday.
| fmajid wrote:
| Extortion is usually the motive. "Nice porn/gambling/crypto
| website you've got here. Shame if something happened to
| it".
| aniviacat wrote:
| Perhaps cruelty is the point.
|
| Perhaps they intentionally attack targets that are
| generally seen in a positive light, to prove to potential
| customers that morale is not an issue.
|
| Oh, you want me to DDOS a children's hospital? No problem.
| jachee wrote:
| Thus is the power of The Dark Side^W^W^W late-stage
| capitalism.
| DougN7 wrote:
| Maybe there is something damning on there that someone needs
| kept quiet for a while?
| textfiles wrote:
| No.
| ai_what wrote:
| > Please don't post shallow dismissals
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| sirtaj wrote:
| The user you're responding to is Jason Scott of TIA.
| ai_what wrote:
| Oh sorry, I guess that makes it a very detailed and well
| though-out response.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| It does, yes. The single word, from that source, on this
| topic, communicates all relevant information.
| textfiles wrote:
| Hackernews, it never disappoints.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > Don't be snarky.
|
| Also from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| Freak_NL wrote:
| That would have been an excellent addition to that
| comment.
| matsemann wrote:
| What's the significance of that?
|
| (Googling "Jason Scott TIA" gives me "Dr Jason Scott is a
| Senior Research Fellow in the Tasmanian Institute of
| Agriculture" which doesn't explain much to me)
| ziddoap wrote:
| The beauty of acronyms/initialisms that people are too
| lazy to spell out!
|
| TIA = The Internet Archive (i.e. the victim of the DDoS).
|
| > _The user you 're responding to is Jason Scott of The
| Internet Archive_
| jkrejcha wrote:
| Jason Scott works at the Internet Archive[1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott
| gumby wrote:
| The Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture are well known for
| their work on biological models of computer security
| architecture.
|
| I am shocked that any HN reader could be ignorant of this
| fact. Their director is a (controversial) Turing Award
| winner.
| humanfromearth9 wrote:
| Shallow dismissal anyway, even if he was the Supreme
| Majestic King of New Americania. He might further explain
| his answer. And I'm truly sorry for the DDos happening to
| this guy's organisation!
| sirtaj wrote:
| What is there to explain further?
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| Some evidence or reasoning that there's nothing damning
| anywhere on IA that anyone could possibly need kept quiet
| to the point of having ordered this particular attack.
| Just being the target of an attack doesn't mean you have
| perfect information about the perpetrator or their
| motives.
|
| This could even be as simple as "Some aspect of the
| attack pattern is inconsistent with such a motive", or
| "We spotted the perpetrator credibly gloating about it".
| But just from IA's public statements, the pattern
| ("launching tens of thousands of fake information
| requests per second") is quite consistent with simple
| denial.
| dspillett wrote:
| Which without context that is not given I certainly
| didn't know, so it isn't safe to expect others to know
| to. Are we supposed to dig into people's profiles to
| derive relevant context?
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Makes sense: Large media outlets don't like their old BS
| stories staying accessible. I've seen it used as an
| accountability tool.
| somenameforme wrote:
| DDOS attacks are dirt cheap and can be contracted from large
| professional sites offering customer support and the works. The
| largest one taken down had hundreds of thousands of users, and
| had carried out some 4 million attacks, for prices starting at
| $14.99/month. [1]
|
| So in other words, anybody can carry out a DDOS for basically
| no cost. So trying to analyze the purpose, let alone suspects,
| is probably not going to be fruitful.
|
| [1] - https://wccftech.com/865619-2/
| sva_ wrote:
| And they're curiously usually protected by Cloudflare.
| ziddoap wrote:
| What makes that curious?
| jachee wrote:
| Cloudflare's "protection" is basically a racket. e.g.
|
| https://robindev.substack.com/p/cloudflare-took-down-our-
| web...
| hnbad wrote:
| While I think there might be valid arguments to support
| that claim, that blog post hardly qualifies. The author
| runs a gambling site and while the way Cloudflare handled
| the situation (according to the author) could certainly
| be improved, they clearly were affecting other users by
| "tainting" shared IPs.
| jimmydorry wrote:
| And yet if they ponied up the money, that issue of
| "tainting" shared IPs suddenly goes away. You can bet
| CloudFlare would graciously give the gambling site as
| much time as they need to bring their own IP (they went
| out of their way to link third party sellers of IPs with
| dubious provenance, after all).
| hnbad wrote:
| Did you read the blog post? It doesn't include the entire
| correspondence so it's not clear how explicit Cloudflare
| was about this but the Enterprise plan they were trying
| to upsell them includes BYOIP. It's clear to me that
| Cloudflare insisted they buy the enterprise plan because
| it includes BYOIP.
|
| So in other words, Cloudflare noticed the author was
| running a gambling site, they decided that this was
| negatively impacting the shared IPs and the author would
| therefore need to upgrade to a plan that included BYOIP
| because they would need to use that feature to continue
| using Cloudflare and they likely insisted on prepayment
| for the annual plan because gambling sites have a
| reputation for being flaky and prepaying would have
| demonstrated the liquidity necessary to continue
| operating the site at that plan.
|
| Again, Cloudflare could have communicated this better
| (and maybe they did in parts of the correspondence the
| author didn't share) but this all seems perfectly
| understandable, especially given how the sales team kept
| referencing Trust and Safety (implying the alternative is
| ending the contract for violating the ToS).
|
| The issue of tainting shared IPs would indeed have
| suddenly gone away had the author brought their own IP
| (which would have required an Enterprise plan to do while
| staying on Cloudflare). Instead the author feigns
| ignorance arguing they don't even need the features of
| the Enterprise plan and doesn't acknowledge the issue
| with sharing IPs while sheepishly mentioning that maybe
| they're accidentally invading bans of their domain in
| certain countries by having alternative domains which
| they of course don't actually need because most traffic
| comes from their main domain yet somehow having these
| alternative domains is critical to running their
| business.
|
| What are you even trying to argue here? The author is
| being deliberately dishonest in how they frame the
| incident and Cloudflare's motivation is perfectly
| understandable. The only thing to take offense with is
| the communication style which we can only judge based on
| a select few messages the author shows us. We have to
| rely on their word after they have already demonstrated
| dishonesty.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| To me it's similar to the whole "SSO wall of shame"
| thing, where a vital feature is locked behind more
| expensive pricing. As said in the article:
|
| "We tried saying that we don't need any number of the 14
| features that are included"
|
| Which, to me, is the crux of the issue. Is it fair for
| Cloudflare to say "You are breaking the terms of service
| if you do not change your set up in this specific way,
| and also the way you need to chance your setup is locked
| behind a significantly more expensive pricing." Being
| able to bring your own IP does not, to me, seem like
| something that should require a plan that is orders of
| magnitude more expensive than the standard. It seems much
| more to me like something that is more fundamental, and
| should be included as an option in a lesser version of
| the product Maybe I'm wrong, and there is actually
| significant overhead to Cloudflare for letting customers
| bring an IP. But as is, it feels very much to me like a
| situation where something vital was locked at the most
| expensive tier to force certain kinds of customer to pay
| more.
| hnbad wrote:
| I'd say at that point it's essentially compensation for
| personal suffering.
|
| Yes, BYOIP as a feature does not seem complex enough to
| warrant paying for an Entperise license. But the kind of
| customers who need BYOIP (especially if they need it to
| avoid harming your IP reputation) are likely to be at a
| higher risk of being flaky or otherwise painful so this
| is very much a tax on running that kind of business (just
| as porn sites often find it hard to find payment
| processors because of the high risk of credit card
| fraud).
|
| As a freelancer I have absolutely made offers at 10x my
| going rate for client I did not want. The idea is that if
| they really want me to work for them, at least I get
| reimbursed for the suffering that will entail. This kind
| of pricing structure is no different.
| neurostimulant wrote:
| Doubt cloudflare has anything to do with it. The operators
| most likely don't want to openly expose their website's ip
| addresses.
| jsheard wrote:
| It's obvious why a DDOS provider would want to use
| Cloudflare, but their point is that Cloudflare turns a
| blind eye to DDOS providers using their services.
| Actively helping to keep DDOS providers online while also
| selling DDOS mitigation isn't a good look to say the
| least.
| coretx wrote:
| Cloudflare is a data goldmine setup by people who love
| fedoras and newspapers. Professional DDOS providers won't
| use Cloudflare ever and have the skills, metal and
| (human) network to do everything in-house.
| jart wrote:
| Yeah you're actually worse off using Cloudflare because
| you can't block attacker IPs anymore, once you're
| dependent on them to protect you, and they're not very
| good at protecting. I run an online service that invites
| hackers to DDOS the server. Cloudflare's servers would
| usually go down before we did. The only way we could stay
| online was by switching to GCS and using token buckets to
| blackhole IPs in the raw prerouting table, which made the
| hostile packets into mighty Google's problem. Thankfully
| they don't charge for ingress, so it was about as cheap
| as Cloudflare too.
| fch42 wrote:
| You mention the key feature for ddos (self-)protection -
| zero ingress fees. Non-Availability hurts you in harder-
| to-quantify terms than a bill for bandwidth used.
|
| Zero ingress puts the upfront bandwidth cost onto the
| attacker. Because... you actually may succeed to defend
| and stay up. Their success is not guaranteed, they might
| be shouting into the void.
|
| Attack success (as in, "impact on you") is guaranteed if
| your ingress is chargeable.
| mike_d wrote:
| That is exactly the problem. These services are
| constantly at war with each other and are attacked by
| competitors. Cloudflare provides DDoS protection to the
| DDoS providers so they can keep their services online,
| which directly benefits Cloudflare by DDoS being a bigger
| problem than if they were all busy attacking each other.
|
| This is a sampling of currently available services and
| who they use for DDoS protection:
| stresslab.app - Cloudflare maxstresser.com -
| Cloudflare sunnystress.com - Cloudflare
| tresser.io - Cloudflare ip-stresser.net -
| Cloudflare hardstresser.com - DDoSGuard
| zdstresser.net - Cloudflare starkstresser.net -
| Cloudflare stresserhub.org - Cloudflare
| nightmarestresser.net - DDoSGuard
|
| Just for fun head over to Cloudflare's abuse reporting
| site and try to figure out how to get one of these taken
| down. https://abuse.cloudflare.com/
| jsheard wrote:
| DDoSGuard has a reputation for being The Crime CDN,
| disproportionately serving things like phishing
| campaigns, black hat forums, piracy sites, etc, so the
| fact that they are merely the _second_ most popular CDN
| amongst DDOS providers after Cloudflare speaks volumes.
| jltsiren wrote:
| I find the idea of DDoS providers confusing. If someone
| tried to operate a service that can be abused easily to
| cause similar disruption in the physical world, the
| operation would be taken down quickly and the people
| behind it would probably end up in prison. But somehow
| the internet is still a lawless zone where crime is
| tolerated and everyone is out for themselves.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| The added element of international relations makes it a
| far bit more tricky than any real-world equivalent.
| Usually these operate out of places that are not on good
| relations with the countries they target. Russia and
| China are the big ones.
| mike_d wrote:
| It used to be very rare for DDoS providers to publicly
| advertise their services, you kinda had to know a guy who
| knew a guy. If you put up a website offering this service
| the Good Guys of the Internet would track you down and
| get your provider to take you down, or that provider
| would in turn get disconnected from the internet.
|
| Now they hide behind Cloudflare who will refuse to turn
| over any information so that security folks can get them
| taken down. Unfortunately Cloudflare has grown too large
| that we can't just block all of it or depeer them like we
| would any other network that provided services to bad
| actors.
| jltsiren wrote:
| That kind of vigilante justice is part of the general
| lawlessness.
|
| Most of the listed domain names are under US
| jurisdiction. That means the authorities should be able
| to take them down. If Cloudflare is found to have been
| knowingly enabling crime, it could face fines, and the
| CEO and other key people could end up in prison. The
| Cloudflare services have probably been paid using means
| that are under US jurisdiction. Those payment accounts
| can be closed and the people behind them tracked down and
| potentially charged with crimes.
|
| Or at least that's how things work in the real world. The
| internet is still apparently too new for the authorities
| to understand how to deal with it.
| greyface- wrote:
| It's true that you can't practically block Cloudflare
| without impacting legitimate users, but they can
| absolutely be depeered if you're willing to pay a higher
| transit bill.
| swyx wrote:
| TIL. thats shocking. i doubt it's intentional but
| "institutions will preserve the problem to which they are
| the solution. no need to ascribe to malice that which can
| be blamed on simple incentives (and of course its a big
| problem, things fall thru the cracks, etc etc)
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| And you probably think glass repairers don't drive around
| freeways at night dusting gravel.
| prmoustache wrote:
| My wild guess is most of them are ran by companies offering
| ddos mitigations services.
| codexon wrote:
| It's probably because someone saved incriminating evidence on
| it and they refused to take it down.
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| If it's on their own site, that wouldn't be a problem. IIRC,
| archive.org stops serving pages that later appear in a
| robots.txt file.
| codexon wrote:
| It could be on a website they don't control like twitter.
| swinglock wrote:
| Are you upset? Can't do nothing about it? It even made a
| headline or even just a thread on a forum? That's reason enough
| for some. It could easily be a teenager with no better excuse
| than not having a fully developed brain and no better reason
| than liking to ruin things. Having seen how much that happens,
| I guess it's more likely than a conspiracy or a crime with any
| rationality behind it.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| There are some very bad very shitty people about, just trying
| to make earth worse.
|
| Npm has been under pretty severe attack for ~6 weeks now. I
| forget who else.
|
| The scariest thing to me is what we might do in the face of
| persistent online attacks. If this stuff gets rolled up into
| western nations rolling back privacy & liberty? That's an
| theonion.com "bin laden plan to sit back and enjoy collapse"
| situation. Freak out & let cyber security paranoia reign &
| destroy free communication & connection.
| krapp wrote:
| Seriously? People do this shit for fun. There used to be a
| program (LOIC) popular on 4chan used for DDoS attacks all the
| time, it's the origin of the "firin mah lazer" meme.
| viraptor wrote:
| The lazer meme (2006) predates LOIC (~2010) by years
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shoop-da-whoop
| krapp wrote:
| I stand corrected.
| Uptrenda wrote:
| It's probably just some kid with a botnet that's showing off.
| You all give these people way too much credit, lmao.
| banish-m4 wrote:
| Al-shabaab, Boko Haram, China, Russia, DPRK, basement dweller,
| or third-party offensive hackers.
| pixxel wrote:
| > Sorry to say, archive.org is under a ddos attack. The data is
| not affected, but most services are unavailable. We are working
| on it & will post updates in comments.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40492076
| rzr wrote:
| so is purl.org
| zxxh wrote:
| Looks like someone at Amazon is trying juke those remainded
| servers again. When is the IRS gonna catch up with this? They are
| worse OpenAI at abusing their non-profit status.
| gbnvc wrote:
| "AWS has been losing money, quick dump more old stuff to IA. So
| we can write it off!" - Amazon now.
| tetris11 wrote:
| Who's their biggest enemy at the moment
| btbuildem wrote:
| Paywalled sites?
| ysofunny wrote:
| let me go further: the whole of the copyrighted industry
|
| including all media conglomerates (obviously) and all
| scientific, literary, etc, publishing houses.
|
| also, there's a global war, so it well may be a fog-of-war
| technique or like somebody else also mentioned: someone needs
| something to stay quite for a little bit as part of some
| larger operation
| markus_zhang wrote:
| The establishment always gets the most advanced technology,
| attack and defense because they have the big bucks. That's
| why I never believed that technological advancement
| promotes individualism, distributed X (whatever X is,
| money, power, whatever). Eventually it always points to a
| more centralized world because the elites are able to
| control more with each technological advancement.
| genidoi wrote:
| Doubt this is coordinated - more likely a singular
| (m/b)illionaire wanted a post/photo/video, or multiple of,
| deleted for good, perhaps for suppression of legal
| evidence, and this was one way of bringing some firepower
| to a... library. One of the internets biggest libraries
| too. Odd.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| But a ddos doesn't remove the page...
| ysofunny wrote:
| it may prevent its capture in the first place, and it can
| also prevent consulting the page (a delay tactic)
| brokenmachine wrote:
| Good points.
| some_furry wrote:
| That's a tough question to answer without devolving into
| politics, which is off topic for Hacker News.
|
| I think that's also the wrong question to ask. "Who's doing
| it?" is less interesting than "What's enabling them to
| succeed?"
| slater wrote:
| Politics isn't fully off-topic on HN; per guidelines, _most_
| political stuff is off-topic, "unless they're evidence of
| some interesting new phenomenon"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| kristopolous wrote:
| Anyone who doesn't like the availability and accessibility of
| history and documents.
|
| Lots of people want to rewrite or erase history.
|
| Quoting a story I wrote about this a few years ago:
|
| "Everything you speak, all ideas, all things, all thoughts,
| they are all of the past. Society and knowledge is a composite
| of the shadows of former presents.
|
| When people lie or misrepresent knowledge they speak of a past
| they wish to change.
|
| What if people who have the most to gain from deceit had a tool
| to actually change the past and make these lies the truth?"
|
| Here it is if you're curious
| https://kristopolous.medium.com/stephen-hawking-had-a-time-t...
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| This is like an arsonist lighting an orphanage or library on
| fire. Why would you do something like that?
| jedberg wrote:
| To sell your services as an arsonist. Being able to point to a
| big successful attack helps professional DDoSers sell their
| services.
| ysofunny wrote:
| more cynically, to sell fire-safety insurance
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| I always wondered if the NSA and Cloud flare do stuff like
| this with websites not behind cloud flares umbrella.
|
| "Make em offer they can't refuse."
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Most DDoS for hire services are on CloudFlare and they
| refuse to drop them. You're at least in the right ZIP
| code.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| But wouldn't they need to telegraph the attack in advance to
| customers? Taking credit after the fact is risky as many
| competitors will also take credit
| jedberg wrote:
| Yes, that is part of it. They tell potential clients, "On
| May 27th, I'm going to take down the Internet Archive".
| Then they do it, and then go back to their clients and say,
| "now that you've seen my work, do you want to pay me?".
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| I wonder where we can find a middleman for that kind of
| service. Criminal groups would be pretty stupid not
| paying a middleman to do the checks and filtering.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Then wouldn't it make more sense to take down a target
| with few eyes on it? Since you're not paid, why deal with
| the risk of an attack that will make the news?
| jedberg wrote:
| Making the news is the goal. As long as a few people can
| verify it was you, word will get around about the person
| who can take down big targets, and will cite the news
| articles as part of the proof.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Isn't word getting out about you bad though? As it puts
| you in the spotlight of law enforcement?
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| I don't understand, what prevents them from running to your
| competition if you dont mark your brand?
| mandibles wrote:
| Some people just want to watch the world burn.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| Precisely no honor amongst thieves.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Probably no good reason. In technical terms, some asshole is
| dicking around.
| karma_pharmer wrote:
| Because the orphanage refuses to use cloudflare.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| Precisely this. There's a reason cloudflare was part of the
| CIA's incubator. Totally organic growth and didn't have
| government and spook hands all over it /s.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40492076
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Meta dupe!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40492670
| pmarreck wrote:
| Is there any way to know who is responsible?
| pixelpoet wrote:
| I think "follow the money" is a decent heuristic here. Why else
| would anyone do it?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Is it possible for archive.org to trace back the IP
| addresses? I assume maybe the attackers used a lot of IoT
| devices or VMs in cloud?
| fmajid wrote:
| Botnets usually, sometimes amplification attacks against
| NTP or DNS, although the Chinese government's Great
| Firewall also has offensive capabilities known as the Great
| Cannon, although they are generally used against GitHub
| because it hosts censorship-circumvention software like
| VPNs.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Are botnets usually hosted on personal computers or
| servers or IoT? I'm thinking maybe archive.org can block
| a whole range of IPs if needed.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| Resistance to that kind of simple countermeasure is
| exactly what distinguishes a DDoS attack from a non-
| distributed DoS attack. The traffic basically comes from
| "everywhere". Not literally every IP block and route, but
| widespread enough that it's difficult to separate from
| legitimate users without actually processing the traffic
| (which is what you're trying to avoid by e.g. blocking an
| IP range).
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| Thanks. And I assume they mostly come from friendly
| countries which makes it even harder to block?
|
| This is indeed very tough to resist.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Yes. This is why it's maddening that most people don't
| take computer security seriously. Virus infected devices
| are what give these botnets their scale and wide
| distribution.
| pmarreck wrote:
| So compile a long list of compromised source IP's and
| just block those upstream?
| fmajid wrote:
| All of the above, and also increasingly IoT devices,
| specially printers and routers. There is no simple way to
| block them.
| fortran77 wrote:
| There are many individuals with embarassing things on the
| Internet. Perhaps one of the recent University empcampment
| participants wants to get an internship and doesn't want
| prospective employers to see articles about them them
| screaming and yelling. I think the odds that a major
| publisher is behind this is slim....
| dang wrote:
| Url changed from
| https://bsky.app/profile/archive.org/post/3ktiatctiqm2r, which
| points to this.
| swyx wrote:
| its probably fine now but maaaybe not great policy when ddos is
| involved
| markus_zhang wrote:
| How much $$ does archive.org spend on infra and such? How much
| does one need to endure the most damaging DDOS? I remember seeing
| from somewhere that Google went through some huge DDOS attack
| without going down.
|
| Given its benefit to the lay persons I recommend everyone who use
| their services give a small amount once for a while. I already
| did so but if not for family issues I'd donate way more.
| mike_d wrote:
| DDoS attacks are usually volumetric attack. Send more bits than
| the pipe the website has to the internet.
|
| To combat this you need to buy enough pipes to the internet for
| your regular internet traffic, as well as an extra 500 Gbps or
| so. That is a lot of unused bandwidth to be paying for every
| month. Then once the packets arrive at your datacenter you
| still need to buy dedicated appliances to scrub out the bad and
| let the good flow.
|
| Google is constantly under attack, but their normal daily
| traffic volume (multiple Tbps) is large enough that just the
| extra capacity they keep on hand to deal with traffic spikes
| the World Cup or a popular YouTube video is larger than what
| most attackers can muster.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| What are the ways to manage a DDoS attack, preferably using open
| source? Don't say Cloudflare because they're an extortionist
| firm.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| I have asked this a few times and never gotten an answer beyond
| "One day they could turn evil." What is the reason Cloudflare
| is an extortionist firm? I am way more concerned about Amazon
| than Cloudflare.
| remram wrote:
| There was a recent anonymous critic of Cloudflare on the
| front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481808
| tripletao wrote:
| Beyond the upselling under duress, I've also seen complaints
| that Cloudflare protects the client-facing websites of DDoS-
| as-service operators. This enables them to sell their
| service, which then creates demand for Cloudflare's service
| from their targets.
|
| Cloudflare describes that policy as a commitment to content
| neutrality rather than extortion, and I think that's more or
| less sincere (since they've protected many other unpopular
| sites that didn't give them such a benefit, with a few high-
| profile exceptions). It does work out very conveniently for
| them, though.
| fortran77 wrote:
| > Cloudflare describes that policy as a commitment to
| content neutrality rather than extortion
|
| But we know that's not true. Point out problems with a very
| controversial blogger and they'll cancel your service.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| "What is the reason Cloudflare is an extortionist firm?"
|
| Because they are a publicly traded company
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Nailed it. The implications are saddening.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| So is Amazon.
| jsyang00 wrote:
| Cloudflare is not "an extortionist firm". It is a large tech
| company, where occasionally teams employ shitty sales tactics
| to meet their numbers, but generally provides a valuable
| service and acts reasonably ethically.
|
| There are open source tools to mitigate DDoS, but all of them
| will have some marginal cost to run, and they will all be
| significantly worse than Cloudflare as they benefit from
| neither Cloudflare's data moat or scale.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| No, thanks. Cloudflare acts ethically only until it suits
| them. It is the pre-exploitation phase to lure a customer. We
| are not fools here. The report at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481808 says it all.
|
| Secondly, considering Cloudflare would MITM all traffic, it
| would make a data good source for the NSA, thereby violating
| all user privacy.
| bdlowery wrote:
| Nah. Just don't do anything illegal and you're good
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| > Secondly, considering Cloudflare would MITM all traffic,
| it would make a data good source for the NSA, thereby
| violating all user privacy.
|
| This seems like a weak argument. Should we just take down
| anything widely accessed because it might be used by the
| NSA? What about AWS?
| cess11 wrote:
| Yes, that's pretty much the view in Schrems II from the
| European Court of Justice. The CLOUD Act does not respect
| data protection rights.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Is AWS providing DDoS mitigation services now, coupled
| with MITM access to user traffic?
| bozey07 wrote:
| They're the man at the end, actually. No extortion
| necessary.
| ornornor wrote:
| > Cloudflare is not "an extortionist firm". It is a large
| tech company, where occasionally teams employ shitty sales
| tactics to meet their numbers, but generally provides a
| valuable service and acts reasonably ethically.
|
| Nice.
| robertakarobin wrote:
| Aw darn, they are? I was just considering migrating my frontend
| to them after seeing all the positive reviews. What's the
| issue?
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Refer to the report at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481808
|
| Secondly, considering Cloudflare would MITM all traffic, it
| would make a data good source for the NSA, thereby violating
| all user privacy.
| remram wrote:
| If your application can take it, drop it in the application. If
| your load balancers can take it, drop it on your load
| balancers. Otherwise you have to get your provider to drop it,
| if they can take it. Worse case they'll drop all traffic meant
| for you to protect the rest of their network.
| Joe_Cool wrote:
| HAProxy + DDOS protection?
| https://www.haproxy.com/blog/application-layer-ddos-attack-p...
|
| Or any proof of work proxy that delays the ingress traffic. If
| you only have one server there is very little you can do except
| maybe redirect to a static page or kill the DNS entries.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| Plenty of DDoS mitigation firms use open source tech, but
| that's only step one of mitigation, most normal firms will
| never be able to stop a DDoS attack without someone else with a
| lot of resources tanks the attack for you.
|
| Even if you go all out and buy a bunch of huge IP transit
| links, you are not gonna be able to stop the IXP 800 miles away
| from getting congested and blocking your customers from
| accessing your site anyways. You need access to a backbone to
| route traffic differently to avoid those kinds of issues, which
| is why DDoS scrubbing services will partner with a T1 ISP to do
| most of the work.
| emporas wrote:
| The only universal way IMHO, is to associate a small cost to
| every internet request. The cost has to be as small as
| possible, but it has to be there for million/billion/trillion
| requests to add up the cost and make it uneconomical to
| continue the attack past some point.
|
| It is the same problem with email spam. What's stopping someone
| from sending billions of spam mails?
|
| If we suppose that: a blockchain exists which is fast enough,
| cheap enough, and spread out enough on the globe (to mitigate
| latency), then there is no reason, for a tcp packet to not
| carry with it a small money transaction, in the order of a
| millionth of a cent. Information gets served back, only when
| the transaction is confirmed.
|
| In that way, any request with no transaction gets discarded,
| and only requests with a small cost pass through. Suddenly by
| sending requests one after another and no end in sight, DDoS
| attacks and mail spam start to cost money. It is the _serving_
| of request that makes DDoS attacks and mail spam to be
| effective.
|
| The problem however, is that no blockchain is fast enough and
| cheap enough as of today. But there will be one in a handful of
| years.
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| That would assume the cost is borne by the attacker, and not
| every smart thermostat in their botnet.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s
| (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. The big problem
| isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some
| "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet
| prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist
| in reality.
|
| (also, you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the
| payment processing / firewall mechanism)
| emporas wrote:
| > Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early
| 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam.
|
| These ideas indeed exist for decades.
|
| > The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it
| presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for
| legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has
| never been shown to exist in reality.
|
| Advances in technology, software and hardware, make it
| easier and easier for that sweet spot to exist. That sweet
| spot, didn't exist in the past, certainly, but we are close
| right now.
|
| One example that i think is useful here, is aluminum cans
| for fizzy drinks. Aluminum, a strong metal compared to
| cardboard or plastic or glass, is better at withstanding
| pressurized gases without exploding. The downside, is that
| it's more expensive. When manufacturing prices dropped down
| a lot, then it was feasible to drink half a liter of liquid
| and just throw away the metal. Aluminum still not free
| though, but the small price did worth it. Huge waste of
| energy as well to smelt all that metal and throw it away
| after 10 minutes of drinking, but it is economically
| viable.
|
| One could manufacture Titanium cans, and drink even more
| fizzy drinks. But that's not economically viable as of
| today.
|
| > you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the
| payment processing / firewall mechanism.
|
| Yes, the problem is moved elsewhere, that's the weak link
| in the scheme i described. The thing is that a flood of
| transactions still costs money. Blockchains cannot be
| flooded just with requests, they have to be flooded by
| transactions. Take a look at the article [1] which outlines
| some ideas. I don't agree with a lot of things in there,
| but it states the problem and gives some numbers.
|
| The theory when it comes to blockchain deterring DDoS
| attacks (and other kind of attacks), is that there are not
| bad guys in general, just rational economic actors who use
| dirty tricks. When a dirty trick starts to cost money, and
| profit disappears from an attack, then the rational
| economic actor will stop the attack. The bad guy will
| resume the attack regardless of profit, but that's one of
| the axioms of the theory, that there are no bad guys.
|
| [1] https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-
| an-inc...
| Analemma_ wrote:
| This wouldn't fix anything. Most DDoS attacks today are
| amplification attacks, e.g. "I sent 10 bytes to this
| unpatched NTP server and as a result it sends 500 kb to this
| target server., so in your scheme the costs would not be
| borne by the attacker.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| Proof of work gateways and really annoying captchas.
| rcxdude wrote:
| It's not (just) a case of the software, it's the hardware and
| the position in the network. These DDoS primarily just saturate
| your internet pipe: you need to be able to co-ordinate with
| core ISPs to block the ddos traffic before it concentrates too
| much.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| archive-it.org is still working
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| #!/bin/sh read x; tnftp -4o/dev/stdout http://wayback.archive-
| it.org/all/20250000000000/$x # (TLS forward proxy listening on
| port 80)
|
| Example:
|
| https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20240506083041/https://ar...
| sans_souse wrote:
| It's those damn record labels throwing a cog in the wheel, isn't
| it
| Lammy wrote:
| This is why I've gotten into the habit of maintaining my own WWW
| archive of sites I find interesting. Probably have around 1 TiB
| now, and One Of These Days I'd like to set my network up so it
| can serve arbitrary sites directly from local archive to revive
| any site I want.
|
| I have a `wget-mirror` shell function invoking wget with all the
| trimmings that takes care of 99% of sites. I'll edit the full
| command into this comment when I get home if anybody else wants
| to start doing the same :)
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Same. I've been scraping PDF'ed magazines, etc. and keeping
| them locally. In addition to feeding my byte-hoarding
| tendencies, I like the idea I could be off-grid in my van/RV
| somewhere and reading a "Popular Electronics" magazine from
| 1972 on my laptop.
|
| (Oh, never mind YouTube videos that I once added to playlists
| ... that later disappear leaving only holes in my playlists.)
| jasonfarnon wrote:
| My problem with this approach is that the stuff I want to
| look at in 10 yrs time is never the stuff I think of saving
| right now. In the 2000s there were browser extensions I've
| forgotten the names of (shelf? slogger?) that would
| automatically save local copies of every webpage on page
| load. But I don't think they're around anymore and have no
| idea how you could achieve similar functionality with dynamic
| pages anyway.
| rightbyte wrote:
| > But I don't think they're around anymore and have no idea
| how you could achieve similar functionality with dynamic
| pages anyway.
|
| It is probably easiest to save the render as a picture and
| then store text separately for searchability?
| disqard wrote:
| There's a way to get "the best of both worlds" (tbh,
| works _most_ of the time): print to pdf.
| Intralexical wrote:
| > But I don't think they're around anymore and have no idea
| how you could achieve similar functionality with dynamic
| pages anyway.
|
| Chromium's MHTML "Save as..." and the SingleFile
| WebExtension should both save copies of the rendered DOM.
|
| Apparently Safari has WebArchive and Mozilla had MAFF for
| similar use cases.
|
| I think WARC is supposed to save enough data about network
| streams for dynamic pages to work. At least on the Wayback
| Machine, infinite scrolling and "Load More" buttons _do_
| kinda work sometimes. You may have to load the archived
| pages in a browser and try to use each dynamic feature at
| least once, to trigger requests for needed resources.
|
| SingleFile: https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile
|
| LWN on WARC, tools:
| https://anarc.at/blog/2018-10-04-archiving-web-sites/
|
| Self-hostable web archives: https://awesome-
| selfhosted.net/tags/archiving-and-digital-pr...
|
| Wayback Machine addons, bookmarklets:
| https://help.archive.org/help/save-pages-in-the-wayback-
| mach...
| swyx wrote:
| yes please. extra credit for anyone who shares instructions on
| how to inject this into every website i browse sans blocklist
| password4321 wrote:
| Keeping a local, searchable record of all web browsing comes
| up every few months here, but it took me a while to find a
| lengthier discussion like this one from 2022:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31848210
| swyx wrote:
| incredible linkfinding. you deserve 10 upvotes.
| branon wrote:
| https://archivebox.io/ perhaps?
| Lammy wrote:
| Missed the edit window, but here's the command I use. Newlines
| added here for clarity. wget-mirror() {
| wget --mirror --convert-links --adjust-extension --page-
| requisites \ --no-parent --content-disposition
| --content-on-error \ --header="Accept: text/html,applic
| ation/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8" \
| --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64;
| rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0" \ --restrict-
| file-names="windows,nocontrol" -e robots=off --no-check-
| certificate \ --no-hsts --retry-connrefused --retry-on-
| host-error --reject-regex=".*\/\/\/.*" $1 }
|
| Some notes:
|
| -- This command hits servers as fast as possible. Not sorry. I
| have encountered a very small number of sites-I-care-to-mirror
| that have any sort of mitigation for this. The only site I'm IP
| banned from right now is http://elm-chan.org/ and that's just
| because I haven't cared to power-cycle my ISP box or bother
| with VPN. If you want to be a better neighbor than me, look
| into wget's `--wait`/`--waitretry`/`--random-wait`.
|
| -- The only part of this I'm actively unhappy with is the fixed
| version number in my fake User-Agent string. I go in and
| increment it to whatever version's current every once in a
| while. I am tempted to try automating it with an additional
| call to `date` assuming a six-week major-version cadence.
|
| -- The `--reject-regex` is a hack to work around lots of CMS
| I've encountered where it's possible to build up links with an
| infinite number of path separators, e.g. an
| `www.example.com///whatever` containing a link to
| `www.example.com////whatever` containing a link to...
|
| -- I am using wget1 aka wget. There is a wget2 project, but
| last time I looked into it wget2 did not support something I
| needed. I don't remember what that something was lol
|
| -- I have avoided WARC because I usually prefer the ergonomics
| of having separate files and because WARC seems more focused on
| use cases where one does multiple archives over time (as is the
| case for Wayback Machine or a search engine) where my archiving
| style is more one-and-done. I don't tend to back up sites that
| are actively changing/maintained.
|
| -- However I do like to wrap my mirrored files in a store-only
| Zip archive when there are a great number of mostly-identical
| pages, like for web forums. I back up to a ZFS dataset with
| ZSTD compression, and the space savings can be quite
| substantial for certain sites. A TAR compresses just as well,
| but a `zip -0` will have a central directory that makes it much
| easier to browse later.
|
| Here is an example of the file usage for
| http://preserve.mactech.com with separate files vs plain TAR vs
| DEFLATE Zip archive vs store-only Zip archive. These are all on
| the same ZSTD-compressed dataset and the DEFLATE example is
| here to show why one would want store-only when fs-level
| compression is enabled. 982M
| preserve.mactech.com.deflate.zip 408M
| preserve.mactech.com.store.zip 410M
| preserve.mactech.com.tar 3.8G preserve.mactech.com
|
| Also I lied and don't have a full TiB yet ;)
| [lammy@popola#WWW] zfs list spinthedisc/Backups/WWW NAME
| USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT spinthedisc/Backups/WWW
| 772G 299G 772G /spinthedisc/Backups/WWW
| [lammy@popola#WWW] zfs get compression spinthedisc/Backups/WWW
| NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
| spinthedisc/Backups/WWW compression zstd local
| [lammy@popola#WWW] ls Academic
| DIY Medicine
| SA Animals Doujin
| Military Science Anime
| Electronics most_wanted.txt
| Space Appliance Fantasy
| Movies Sports Architecture
| Food Music
| Survivalism Art Games
| Personal Theology Books
| History Philosophy
| too_big_for_old_hdds.txt Business
| Hobby Photography
| Toys Cars Humor
| Politics Transportation Cartoons
| Kids Publications
| Travel Celebrity LGBT
| Radio Webcomics Communities
| Literature Railroad Computers
| Media README.txt
|
| Some of this could stand to be re-organized. Since I've gotten
| more into it I've gotten better at anticipating an ideal
| directory depth/specificity at archive time instead of trying
| to come back to them later. Like `DIY` (i.e. home improvement)
| there should go into `Hobby` which did not exist at the time,
| `SA` (SomethingAwful) should go into `Communities` which did
| not exist at the time, `Cars` into `Transportation`, etc.
|
| `Personal` is the directory that's been hardest to sort because
| personal sites are one of my fav things to back up but also one
| of the hardest things to try and organize when they reflect
| diverse interests. For now I've settled on a hybrid approach.
| If a site is geared toward one particular interest or
| subsulture, it gets sorted into `Personal/<Interest>`, like
| `Academics`, `Authors`, `Artists`, `Goth` (loads of '90s goths
| had web pages for some reason). Sites reflecting The Style At
| The Time might get sorted into `1990s` for a blinking-
| construction-GIF Tripod/Angelfire site or `2000s` for an early
| blog. Some times I sort personal sites by generation like
| `GenX` or `Boomer` (said in a loving way -- Boomers did nothing
| wrong) when they reflect interests more typical of one
| particular generation.
| razodactyl wrote:
| Wow. Only 772GB. Way under 1TB. Liar!!
| IntoEmptySpace wrote:
| This is great, thanks for sharing with that additional
| context.
| Adj_and_Styles wrote:
| Maybe save the log automatically? And then check and report
| unsolved errors, at end of the fuction or better separate one
| so log can be reinspected any time.
|
| I have encountered "GnuTLS: The TLS connection was non-
| properly terminated. Unable to establish SSL connection."
| multiple times, and retry options seem to be useless when
| that happens. Some searches suggest it could be related to
| tls handshake fragmentation, but nonetheless wget could retry
| if related options are used. Manual retry seems to download
| the missing URLs, otherwise mirroring jobs are randomly
| incomplete.
| shanemhansen wrote:
| It's weirdly specific but I remember old versions of go
| caused that error. The final packet (close_notify) to close
| the connection was set with the wrong error level.
| nox101 wrote:
| how is this a solution? The Archive performs a valuable
| service. They're collecting wahy more of the internet than you
| are (I assume) so when that thing you didn't back up today is
| not available in 10yrs it's more likely to be on the archive.
|
| I donate to The Archive. More people should too.
| Lammy wrote:
| I don't know why you're treating them as mutually exclusive.
| Single points of failure are as bad when it comes to
| organizations as they are with anything else. Internet
| Archive (the org) could stop existing with the flick of a
| pen. I don't think "Let Somebody Else Do It" is a healthy
| attitude to take, and I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing.
|
| Plus for as great of a service as Wayback Machine is, it can
| be very unpleasant to actually browse. I dislike how it
| injects its own toolbar into every page (yes I know how to
| massage the URLs to get the raw page data, but it isn't
| browsable that way). Have you never encountered sites in
| Wayback Machine where certain pages were just randomly not
| archived? Or when you click a link and get a page from years
| earlier or later than the one you came from? Never
| encountered a page or an entire domain that was blocked from
| Wayback Machine? Why do you think I would get started doing
| something like this in the first place if I didn't find it
| more fun to browse my own archives than Somebody Else's?
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Assume everyone is familiar with this project, dating back to
| 1996:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWWOFFLE
|
| https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/wwwoffle-2.9j.tg...
|
| The way the www is going, it seems like downloading a copy of
| libgen, i.e., nonfiction books, and scimag, i.e., academic
| journals, via torrent, would be more valuable than archiving
| websites, in general. These primary sources are part of the
| material used to train so-called "AI" anyway. The problem is
| that this so-called "AI" also includes all the garbage from the
| www.
|
| Worst case is eventually these books and journals will again
| become publicly inaccessible but "AI" will be offered as a
| bogus substitute; a future where few people will do research
| using primary materials anymore, they will just submit
| questions to a remote "AI" server. Truth will be decimated.
| dkz999 wrote:
| We already kind of see this with search.
| oredbored wrote:
| Do we know for sure that they trained on data from libgen
| etc? It's such a powerful source of information you'd assume
| they must have, although they would never admit it. There
| must be a way to test if they have, via enquiring about some
| niche information only found in certain books.
| Intralexical wrote:
| It is apparently widely suspected that a certain "Books2"
| dataset mentioned by OpenAI is basically just LibGen:
|
| https://blusharkmedia.medium.com/the-ongoing-battle-
| against-...
|
| https://techhq.com/2023/09/can-libgen-shadow-library-
| survive...
|
| https://www.twitter.com/theshawwn/status/132028215268933632
| 0
|
| https://qz.com/openai-books-piracy-microsoft-meta-google-
| cha...
|
| https://qz.com/shadow-libraries-are-at-the-heart-of-the-
| moun...
|
| https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/authors-file-
| lawsui...
|
| When asked about whether this was true, they refused to
| answer based on confidentiality concerns, then said they
| had deleted all copies of the dataset, stopped using it,
| and no longer employed the individuals that compiled it:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-destroyed-ai-
| training...
|
| We _do_ know for a fact that the (non-OpenAI-controlled)
| "Books3" dataset is just "all of bibliotik":
|
| https://www.twitter.com/theshawwn/status/132028214932978483
| 3
|
| https://github.com/soskek/bookcorpus/issues/27
|
| And we also apparently know for a fact that this was
| included in the datasets used to train LLAMA:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pile_(dataset)
|
| https://aicopyright.substack.com/p/the-books-used-to-
| train-l...
|
| https://aicopyright.substack.com/p/has-your-book-been-
| used-t...
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34616256
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40258584
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.14165.pdf
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/battle-over-books3
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/a.
| ..
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/20/fresh-
| con...
|
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41.
| ..
|
| See 40-45.
|
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.60.
| ..
|
| See 87-116.
| jmholla wrote:
| > I'll edit the full command into this comment when I get home
| if anybody else wants to start doing the same :)
|
| I would love that. I have a little for parameter version, but I
| feel yours is more tried and true.
| Lammy wrote:
| See my comment here, and happy archiving!
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40496558
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| 1716850657
|
| Internet Archive is now working for me
| amatecha wrote:
| Seems to be back online. For now, anyway!
|
| https://mastodon.archive.org/@brewsterkahle/1125141764988452...
| @internetarchive is back up! this is a back-and-forth with
| attackers. Sees weekends and holidays are popular. we made
| adjustments, but we will see. at least Happy Memorial Day!
| Uptrenda wrote:
| If anyone from the archive.org team read this: love the website,
| by the way. You've saved so much rare content its really awesome.
| swyx wrote:
| would a decentralized internet archive make sense? impossible
| to ddos.
| Uptrenda wrote:
| I'd love to work on something like this. But the internet
| archive themselves don't seem too interested in it I guess.
| immibis wrote:
| That exists and it's called Arweave. You even collect
| imaginary brownie points for maintaining the archive.
| swyx wrote:
| > Arweave
|
| looks a bit more broad than i wanted. as is its like a thin
| wrapper for IPFS.
| immibis wrote:
| It's a fake brownie point scheme (i.e. cryptocurrency) to
| let the people who archive the most stuff decide what
| goes into the archive. There's also IPFS but that has
| absolutely no way to decide what gets archived.
| Animats wrote:
| Seems to have stopped or been stopped.
| pockmockchock wrote:
| they are trying to make their case for BGP regulation.
| anthk wrote:
| It's where I get all my PD movies, among Jamendo's dump for music
| albums.
|
| This is really bad for CC media.
| keploy wrote:
| People who want to get rid of data history should be considered
| the enemy of humanity. I hope the archive is fine after all this.
| keploy wrote:
| It's an attack on human progress. Attack on our ability to build
| and grow over the past.
| keploy wrote:
| Donate!
|
| https://archive.org/donate
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-28 23:03 UTC)