• @GrymEdm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      136
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

    • Blaster M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1348 months ago

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

    • @ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      228 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.

    • @linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      168 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.

    • @Majestic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      98 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.

    • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -568 months ago

      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.

      • @Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        358 months ago

        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.

          • @Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            118 months ago

            I completely understood. No one is going to IA as their first stop. They’re only going there if they want to see a history change or if the original site is gone.

              • @ikidd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                88 months ago

                Because if you’re referencing something specific, why would you take the chance that someone changes that page? Are you going to monitor that from then on and make sure it’s still correct/relevant? No, you take what is effectively a screenshot and link to that.

                You aren’t really thinking about this from any standpoint except your advertising revenue.

                • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -68 months ago

                  I’m thinking about it from the perspective of an artist or creator under existing copyright law. You can’t just take someone’s work and republish it.

                  It’s not allowed with books, it’s not allowed with music, and it’s not even allowed with public sculpture. If a sculpture shows up in a movie scene, they need the artist’s permission and may have to pay a licensing fee.

                  Why should the creation of text on the internet have lesser protections?

                  But copyright law is deeply rooted in damages, and if advertising revenue is lost that’s a very real example.

                  And I have recourse; I used it. I used current law (DMCA) to remove over 1,000,000 pages because it was my legal right to remove infringing content. If it had been legal, they wouldn’t have had to remove it.

      • Red Army Dog Cooper
        link
        fedilink
        English
        118 months ago

        how do you expect an archive to happen if they are not allowed to archive while it is still up. How are you suposed to track changed or see how the world has shifted. This is a very narrow and in my opinion selfish way to view the world

        • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -28 months ago

          how do you expect an archive to happen if they are not allowed to archive while it is still up.

          I don’t want them publishing their archive while it’s up. If they archive but don’t republish while the site exists then there’s less damage.

          I support the concept of archiving and screenshotting. I have my own linkwarden server set up and I use it all the time.

          But I don’t republish anything that I archive because that dilutes the value of the original creator.

          • @zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            A couple of good examples are lifehacker.com and lifehack.org. Both sites used to have excellent content. The sites are still up and running, but the first one has turned into a collection of listicles and the second is an ad for an “AI-powered life coach”. All of that old content is gone and is only accessible through the Internet Archive.

            In fact, many domains never shut down, they just change owners or change direction.

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Again, isn’t that the site’s prerogative?

              I think there should at least be a recognized way to opt-out that archive.org actually follows. For years they told people to put

              User-agent: ia_archiver
              Disallow:
              

              in robots.txt, but they still archived content from those sites. They refuse to publish what IP addresses they pull content down from, but that would be a trivial thing to do. They refuse to use a UserAgent that you can filter on.

              If you want to be a library, be open and honest about it. There’s no need to sneak around.

      • @jqubed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 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.

  • @deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    34
    edit-2
    8 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

  • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    288 months ago

    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 “<user>-<purpose>@domain.com”; so “me-shopping@domain.com” or “me-games@domain.com” 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 “me@different-domain.com
    • 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.

    • @Pringles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      88 months ago

      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 “nameofshop@mysubdomain.mozmail.com” for example. It’s pretty great because you just make the masks on the fly.

      • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        8 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.

        • @toynbee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          38 months ago

          For users of Gmail, I can confirm this works and you can even set it up so that address+nameofshop goes to a folder called “nameofshop.”

          You can also apparently add a dot anywhere before @gmail.com and still receive the email. I haven’t tried this one, but the last time I mentioned this someone said it was part of the email standard, so presumably it works.

          I don’t know of tricks specifically of this vein for proton mail, but I do know you can setup a catch-all address so, for example, something addressed to invalidaddress@domain.com goes instead to spam@domain.com.

          I’ve not tried SimpleLogin, but apparently it offers similar functionality.

        • @Pringles@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          I didn’t know that actually. They can still deduce your actual email address from that, but for the identification of the culprit that would work as well.

    • Julien Catanese
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28 months ago

      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 “<user>-<purpose>@domain.com”; so “me-shopping@domain.com” or “me-games@domain.com” 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 “me@different-domain.com”
      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.

      thanks for the advices ! Would you recommend a particular password manager?

    • @nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      with as long as this has been going on it really surprises me that nothing has come out as a motive. it seems kind of pointless to do this sort of thing and not make your intentions known

      maybe it’s a government or organization upset that they are keeping archives of things they don’t like

      • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        118 months ago

        Apparently, from a different article, the hackers did it because ‘america bad’.
        Which is fine as a message I guess, but picking this website is dumb.

      • @Syntha@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        68 months ago

        The hacktivist group SN_BLACKMETA has claimed responsibility and cites US support of Israel as the motivation.

  • @g1ya777@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 months ago

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

  • Elaine Cortez
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I was wondering why I hadn’t been able to access Internet Archive yesterday… Who would take down what is the digital equivalent to the Library of Alexandria? I can only imagine some really childish people who have nothing better to do with their lives. I hope that the website can recover from the attack soon! 🙏

    • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68 months ago

      Who would take down what is the digital equivalent to the Library of Alexandria?

      I can think of a few possibilities

      1: peddlers of misinformation

      2: people who love the poorly educated and want the misdeeds of their political allies to be forgotten.

      3: copyright trolls.

  • LeadersAtWork
    link
    fedilink
    English
    68 months ago

    State actors? Maybe.

    It’s a bit tinhatty, though I’m betting on something akin to corporate espionage pointed at the Internet Archive.

    Could just be a 14 year old kid with a bit of talent too. Wouldn’t be the first time.