Comment by avidruntime
2 hours ago
Not sure what to believe here. Wouldn't it be possible to create a site that has some js embedded that is able to be aware of archive's process so that the archived page renders a different page than the original? Could that secondary page be what is trying to deliver the malware, using archive as an unwitting laundry? That matches the MO of malware delivery via other services, no? I'm baffled as to why the mods don't provide any details whatsoever. There are more links to the controversy between the blogger who sought archive's webmasters identity than details of this incident. The mods in this subreddit are doubling down on not sharing details under the guise of "not our job to be infosec". Perhaps a write up is in due time but at the moment this feels like a sketchy extension of the aforementioned drama
Edit: Another r/seattle moderator (not the OP of the original post) has posted their technical writeup of the malware, which is detailed and definitely more in line with what we'd expect with this kind of PSA. While I stand by all criticisms of the OP moderator and their initial handling of the disclosure, you can find the details of the incident in this excellent write up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
Archive.today has been caught intentionally using JS in the past to target others maliciously, so probably better not to give them the benefit of the doubt: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/archive...
Seems unlikely to be the case here if what one of the mods said is true:
> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)
Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently (if the presumably-deleted archive link was posted separately as a reply).
Perhaps, but it could also just be "take our word for it" devolving into more "take our extended word for it". Being prepared to make an alarming enough claim that it sparks discussion outside of the sub but being unwilling to provide evidence remains suspicious.
That suspicion becomes more grounded when the conversation with the subreddits mod regarding why the claim was made without a willingness to provide evidence looks like this:
>If you're going to make an allegation like this, it's necessary to be specific. Specifically, what is the malware, and what is the evidence that it was "injected"? This is "consult a security researcher" and "speak to the media" territory, not "mod announcement" territory.
>>No it's not. These archive sites are a legal gray area anyway. We don't have to consult anyone to decide not to allow the links. No we are not talking to the media, we're not providing research, or a proof. I'm not calling the mayor. We are reddit mods . This is purely about community management.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
Found it: archive[.]is/jXv3A
Originally posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xh57il/removed_by...
The "filed on Tuesday" link seems to go to gullible-thanks[.]com, which redirects to random shady sites.
1 reply →
It looks like some reddit mods on a power trip. Zero actual evidence presented.
Edit: Now there is something here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/comment/19...
Is it a power trip stemming from a technical misunderstanding (archive.today exploited to deliver malware =/= archive.today attempting to deliver malware) or is it something else? In any case, reading the comments on reddit, seems like the mods are going out of their way to appeal to hysterics.
Unbelievable that the comment asking for evidence sits at -24 upvotes in that thread as of now. https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
Seems like the moderators don't know what's going on and are blacklisting it out of abundance of caution. Cause whether the malware comes from the archived site or the archiver itself, it means the archiver isn't safe in a way. Which is fine. It's just ridiculous that someone is asking for details and getting ostracized as a result.
3 replies →