Related:
Archive.today is directing a DDoS attack against my blog - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805 - Feb 2026 (168 comments)
Ask HN: Weird archive.today behavior? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 - Jan 2026 (69 comments)
celsoazevedo2 hours ago
I don't see the point in doxing anyone, especially those providing a useful service for the average internet user. Just because you can put some info together, it doesn't mean you should.
With this said, I also disagree with turning everyone that uses archive[.]today into a botnet that DDoS sites. Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading.
The site behaves as if it was infected by some malware and the archived pages can't be trusted. I can see why Wikipedia made this decision.
jsheardan hour ago
It's also kind of ironic that a site whose whole premise is to preserve sites forever whether the people involved like it or not, is seeking to take down another site because they are involved and don't like it. Live by the sword, etc.
ddtayloran hour ago
Did they actually run the DDoS via a script or was this a case of inserting a link and many users clicked it? They are substantially different IMO
dunder_cat44 minutes ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 has the earliest writeup that I know of. It was running it via a script and intentionally using cache busting techniques to try to increase load on the hosted wordpress infrastructure.
jsheard41 minutes ago
> It was running
It still is, uBlock is killing the script now but if it's allowed to load then it still tries to hammer the other blog.
dunder_cat34 minutes ago
Ah good to know. My pi-hole actually was blocking the blog itself since the ublock site list made its way into one of the blocklists I use. But I've been just avoiding links as much as possible because I didn't want to contribute.
ddtaylor41 minutes ago
Thank you this is exactly the information I was looking for.
"You found the smoking gun!"
hexagonwin44 minutes ago
they silently ran the DDoS script on their captcha page (which is frequently shown to visitors, even when simply viewing and not archiving a new page)
jMylesan hour ago
> Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading.
This is absolutely the buried lede of this whole saga, and needs to be the focus of conversation in the coming age.
basch34 minutes ago
It seems a lot of people havent heard of it, but I think its worth plugging https://perma.cc/ which is really the appropriate tool for something like Wikipedia to be using to archive pages.
ronsor26 minutes ago
It costs money beyond 10 links, which means either a paid subscription or institutional affiliation. This is problematic for an encyclopedia anyone can edit, like Wikipedia.
toomuchtodo24 minutes ago
Wikimedia could pay, they have an endowment of ~$144M [1] (as of June 30, 2024). Perma.cc has Archive.org and Cloudflare as supporting partners, and their mission is aligned with Wikimedia [2]. It is a natural complementary fit in the preservation ecosystem. You have to pay for DOIs too, for comparison [3] (starting at $275/year and $1/identifier [4] [5]).
With all of this context shared, the Internet Archive is likely meeting this need without issue, to the best of my knowledge.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
[2] https://perma.cc/about ("Perma.cc was built by Harvard’s Library Innovation Lab and is backed by the power of libraries. We’re both in the forever business: libraries already look after physical and digital materials — now we can do the same for links.")
[3] https://community.crossref.org/t/how-to-get-doi-for-our-jour...
[4] https://www.crossref.org/fees/#annual-membership-fees
[5] https://www.crossref.org/fees/#content-registration-fees
(no affiliation with any entity in scope for this thread)
ouhamouch24 minutes ago
There are dozen of commercial/enterprise solutions: https://www.g2.com/products/pagefreezer/competitors/alternat...
also the oldest of that kind and rarely mention free https://www.freezepage.com
jsheard23 minutes ago
Does Wikipedia really need to outsource this? They already do basically everything in-house, even running their own CDN on bare metal, I'm sure they could spin up an archiver which could be implicitly trusted. Bypassing paywalls would be playing with fire though.
RupertSalt11 minutes ago
Hypothetically, any document, article, work, or object could be uniquely identified by an appropriate URI or URN, but in practice, http URLs are how editors cite external resources.
The URLs proved to be less permanent than expected, and so the issue of "linkrot" was addressed, mostly at the Internet Archive, and then through wherever else could bypass paywalls and stash the content.
All content hosted by the WMF project wikis is licensed Creative Commons or compatible licenses, with narrow exceptions for limited, well-documented Fair Use content.
toomuchtodo18 minutes ago
Archive.org is the archiver, rotted links are replaced by Archive.org links with a bot.
jsheard14 minutes ago
Yeah for historical links it makes sense to fall back on IAs existing archives, but going forward Wikipedia could take their own snapshots of cited pages and substitute them in if/when the original rots. It would be more reliable than hoping IA grabbed it.
toomuchtodo13 minutes ago
Not opposed, Wikimedia tech folks are very accessible in my experience, ask them to make a GET or POST to https://web.archive.org/save whenever a link is added via the Wiki editing mechanism. Easy peasy. Example CLI tools are https://github.com/palewire/savepagenow and https://github.com/akamhy/waybackpy
Shortcut is to consume the Wikimedia changelog firehose and make these http requests yourself, performing a CDX lookup request to see if a recent snapshot was already taken before issuing a capture request (to be polite to the capture worker queue).
ferngodfathera minute ago
Why wouldn't Wikipedia just capture and host this themselves? Surely it makes more sense to DIY than to rely on a third party.
jsheard9 minutes ago
I didn't know you can ask IA to grab a page before their crawler gets to it. In that case yeah it would make sense for Wikipedia to ping them automatically.
RupertSalt9 minutes ago
Spammers and pirates just got super excited at that plan!
toomuchtodo8 minutes ago
There are various systems in place to defend against them, I recommend against this, poor form against a public good is not welcome.
[deleted]26 minutes agocollapsed
xurukefi5 minutes ago
Kinda off-topic, but has anyone figured out how archive.today manages to bypass paywalls so reliably? I've seen people claiming that they have a bunch of paid accounts that they use to fetch the pages, which is, of course, ridiculous. I figured that they have found an (automated) way to imitate Googlebot really well.
ChrisArchitectan hour ago
Previously Related:
Archive.today is directing a DDoS attack against my blog?
RupertSalt38 minutes ago
"Non-paywalled" ad-free link to archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...
chrisjj3 hours ago
> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced.
Oh? Do tell!
that_lurker29 minutes ago
I would be suprised if archive.today had something that was not in the wayback machine
bombcar14 minutes ago
Wayback machine removes archives upon request, so there’s definitely stuff they don’t make publicly available (they may still have it).
chrisjj11 minutes ago
Archive.today has just about everything the archived site doesn't want archived. Archive.org doesn't, because it lets sites delete archives.
ribosometronome26 minutes ago
Accounts to bypass paywalls? The audacity to do it?
that_lurker19 minutes ago
Oh yeah those where a thing. As a public organization they can't really do that.
I personally just don't use websites that paywall important information.
nobody9999op2 hours ago
>> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced.
>Oh? Do tell!
They do. In the very next paragraph in fact:
The guidance says editors can remove Archive.today links when the original
source is still online and has identical content; replace the archive link so
it points to a different archive site, like the Internet Archive,
Ghostarchive, or Megalodon; or “change the original source to something that
doesn’t need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper)chrisjj2 hours ago
Well, that's an odd idea of "can be replaced".
> editors can remove Archive.today links when the original source is still online and has identical content
Hopeless. Just begs for alteration.
> a different archive site, like the Internet Archive,
Hopeless. It allows archive tampering by the page's own JS and archive deletion by the domain owner.
> Ghostarchive, or Megalodon
Hopeless. Coverage is insignificant.
Kim_Bruningan hour ago
> archive.today
Hopeless. Caught tampering the archive.
The whole situation is not great.
nobody9999op2 hours ago
I just quoted the very next paragraph after the sentence you quoted and asked for clarification.
I did so. You're welcome.
As for the rest, take it up with Jimmy Wiles, not me.
[deleted]2 hours agocollapsed
[deleted]an hour agocollapsed
mrguyorama2 hours ago
>In emails sent to Patokallio after the DDoS began, “Nora” from Archive.today threatened to create a public association between Patokallio’s name and AI porn and to create a gay dating app with Patokallio’s name.
Oh good. That's definitely a reasonable thing to do or think.
The raw sociopathy of some people. Getting doxxed isn't good, but this response is unhinged.
ouhamouch2 hours ago
That was private negotiations, btw, not public statements.
In response to J.P's blog already framed AT as project grown from a carding forum + pushed his speculations onto ArsTechnica, whose parent company just destroyed 12ft and is on to a new victim. The story is full of untold conflicts of interests covered with soap opera around DDoS.
MBCook6 minutes ago
Why does it matter it was a private communications?
It’s still a threat isn’t it?
Yossarrian22an hour ago
Can you elaborate on your point?
ouhamouchan hour ago
The fight is not about where it is shown and not about what, not about "links in Wikipedia", but about whether News Inc will be able to kill AT, as they did with 12FT.
Yossarrian2241 minutes ago
What is News Inc? Are they a funder of Wikipedia(I think Wikipedia didn’t have a parent company so they’re not owners)?
ouhamouch12 minutes ago
They are owner of ArsTechnica which wrote 3rd (or 4th?) article on AT in a row painting it in certain colors.
The article about FBI subpoena that pulled J.P's speculations out of the closet was also in ArsTechnica and by the same author, and that same article explicitly mentioned how they are happy with 12ft down
jMylesan hour ago
It's a reminder how fragile and tenuous are the connections between our browser/client outlays, our societal perceptions of online norms, and our laws.
We live at a moment where it's trivially easy to frame possession of an unsavory (or even illegal) number on another person's storage media, without that person even realizing (and possibly, with some WebRTC craftiness and social engineering, even get them to pass on the taboo payload to others).
paganel12 minutes ago
At this point Archive.today provides a better service (all things considered) compared to Wikipedia, at least when it comes to current affairs.
alsetmusic2 hours ago
I will no longer donate to Wikipedia as long as this is policy.
jraph2 hours ago
Why? The decision seems reasonable at first sight.
chrisjj2 hours ago
Second sight is advisable in such cases. Fact is, archives are essential to WP integrity and there's no credible alternative to this one.
I see WP is not proposing to run its own.
mookan hour ago
Wouldn't it be precisely because archives are important that using something known to modify the contents would be avoided?
essephan hour ago
> something known to modify the contents would be avoided?
Like Wikipedia?
chrisjjan hour ago
Obviously not, since archive.org is encouraged.
that_lurker30 minutes ago
The operators() of archive.today (and the other domains) are doing shadey things and the links are not working so why keep the site around as for example Internet archives waybackmachine works as alternative to it.
chrisjj12 minutes ago
What archive.today links are not working?
> Internet archives wayback machine works as alternative to it.
It is appalling insecure. It lets archives be altered by page JS and deleted by the page domain owner.
throw0101a28 minutes ago
> Fact is, archives are essential to WP integrity and there's no credible alternative to this one.
Yes, they are essentional, and that was the main reason for not blacklisting Archive.today. But Archive.today has shown they do not actually provide such a service:
> “If this is true it essentially forces our hand, archive.today would have to go,” another editor replied. “The argument for allowing it has been verifiability, but that of course rests upon the fact the archives are accurate, and the counter to people saying the website cannot be trusted for that has been that there is no record of archived websites themselves being tampered with. If that is no longer the case then the stated reason for the website being reliable for accurate snapshots of sources would no longer be valid.”
How can you trust that the page that Archive.today serves you is an actual archive at this point?
chrisjj7 minutes ago
[delayed]
Jordan-1178 minutes ago
Did you not read the article? They not only directed a DDOS against a blogger who crossed them, but altered their own archived snapshots to amplify a smear against them. That completely destroys their trustworthiness and credibility as a source of truth.
Larrikin29 minutes ago
About how much had you previously donated over the years?
[deleted]44 minutes agocollapsed
selridge2 hours ago
[flagged]
kmeisthaxan hour ago
[flagged]
shevy-javaan hour ago
Anyone has a short summary as to who and why Archive.today acted via DDos? Isn't that something done by malicious actors? Or did others misuse Archive.today?
zeroonetwothree44 minutes ago
If you read the linked article it is discussed
tl2do29 minutes ago
Why not show both? Wikipedia could display archive links alongside original sources, clearly labeled so readers know which is which. This preserves access when originals disappear while keeping the primary source as the main reference.
bawolff26 minutes ago
The objection is to this specific archieve service not archiving in general.
ranger20711 minutes ago
They generally do. Random example, citation 349 on the page of George Washington: ""A Brief History of GW"[link]. GW Libraries. Archived[link] from the original on September 14, 2019. Retrieved August 19, 2019."