Comment by consumer451
4 hours ago
Archive.today = archive.is - which is added via comment on a huge percentage of posts on HN.
Link to comment explaining the discovery:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
edit: Maybe I should have titled this "claim to have discovered" as there is no external verification, and no write up. I thought I should post this in any case.
To make my edit in the parent clear: HN mods have changed the title, to the exact title of the post reddit on r/seattle. This is understandable.
I always respect the "don't editorialize" rule, but felt that this was a special case as the post title is so sub-specific. My original post title was along the lines of "r/Seattle mods discover archive.today injecting malware, ban site."
From historical posts on HN:
Archive.today is directing a DDoS attack against my blog https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 (9 months ago, 140 points, 71 comments)
> DDoS
I presumed DDoS was used colloquially, but no, they literally added JS so every visitor made a request every 0.3 seconds to that blog server, in response to a blog article. Wholly malicious based on the reporting.
Version that doesn't require login: https://reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetoday_l...
I'm confused though, it says the site injected malware into its archived form. But the HN title says archive.today injected the malware.
You said the same thing twice. “The site” == archive.today
The claim is that archive.today is injecting malware into archived pages. Given some of the past behavior, this is not hard to believe.
The archive.today site is the one injecting the malware, not the site being archived.
"It was discovered by a member of the mod team today that an article archived by archive.today had injected malware links into the archived article."
Idk, maybe this is just a typo, but grammatically this is saying the article injected the links.
3 replies →
TIL; I always thought it was part of archive.org and I never understood why people hated it. Now I get it
no one can view old.reddit.com w/o being authorized. idk if you're aware, but it lost a lot of appeal as such. what i'm saying is, folks can view reddit.com w/o logging in, but not old.reddit.com
Thanks for the reminder. Theoretically, I know this, but it’s a really hard habit for me to drop.
you used to be able to set the redesign_optout cookie to true, but that doesnt seem to work anymore as of like a day ago for me
They just demoed an entirely new version of Old Reddit at ModWorld. Same front-end but runs on the New Reddit backend.
2 replies →
Looks like ClickFix impersonating GitHub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickFix
Ahh thanks... I hadn't heard of "clickfix" before.
Hmmm... any other day I'd think that I need archive.today to get past reddit's login wall to read that.
You wouldn't have, if I could get out of the habit of posting old.reddit links.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
And, indeed, you can use archive.today to get past the login wall:
https://archive.ph/HcOq2 (This is a link to the post for this article)
(If one’s ISP can’t access archive.today, I find that Firefox’s built in free VPN can usually access them)
Or, you can use on of the various Reddit scrapers, e.g:
https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archi...
Here’s a list of Reddit scrapers:
https://github.com/redlib-org/redlib-instances/blob/main/ins...
Personally, as scummy as archive.today is at times, I can generally trust them to have an honest archive about, say, someone’s drunk post before said drunk deletes the post.
You can just not use old.reddit.com. Regular reddit.com works without login.
Maybe this will be enough to finally rule against paywalled submissions here on HN.