Archive.today links going forward

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.

Again? This happened before, if you remember this: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/archive...

Previous HN thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740

If you're brave enough to want to see it yourself, visit https://archive.ph/jXv3A#:~:text=filed%20on%20Tuesday then click on the "Filed on Tuesday" link.

It redirected me to https://stolidityseashellshotter[.]com/ezrsb5dd1268e6f6ebaad... which then redirected me to a fake clone of RT news: https://rurtnews[.]com/

Unlike the Reddit mods, I'm not getting redirected to the malware site, just the fake RT site.

Edit: I clicked it a few more times and its redirecting me to either the fake RT or https://gullible-thanks[.]com/w5FDGi, which redirects to either https://sportshard[.]com/ or https://eatcells[.]com/land/?token=[a random string]

I had to disable uBlock Origin, since it does something to block many of these redirects.

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

They really need to show some evidence for this! Just this suggestion means I won't ever use it again

Wikipedia has blocked it for years. Glad everyone else is finally getting around to it.

I think it's a shame that copyright laws don't allow us to host a non shady alternative to this. The only reason people use such dubious sites is that there's no other way to share a link to a news site without risking that the text will be altered later or hidden behind a paywall.

I read through the comment thread there. There's almost no explanation of what's going on, not even the offending URL. When someone asked, he got downvoted a bunch and ridiculed, which reminds me of why I don't have a Reddit account. I don't trust archive.today because of its track record but don't trust this particular allegation either. The news is simply that a subreddit moderator blacklisted archive.today.

Beware that wallhop.io sometimes forwards requests to archive.{today,is,md,ph,etc.}, e.g., for WSJ

The writing had been on the wall for a while. Hopefully this'll finally drive the usage of the site down.

Disappointing but not that surprising; it's been banned from Wikipedia for months because it was enlisting viewers' computers in a DDoS against an investigative journalist for trying to figure out who was behind it. But it's the only way I've found to access a lot of information that is otherwise lost. So, what do we do?

But…why?

Until somebody invents a solution for bypassing paywalls at scale, they are not going away. It's like people asking "why don't AI companies release their training data".

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]

That sucks I guess but until there’s an alternative I don’t really care.