FaceDeer@fedia.io
on 29 May 2024 16:55
nextcollapse
The problem is that the litigation was entirely "just", as far as the legal system goes. It's an open-and-shut case and everyone saw it coming. The Internet Archive basically stood in front of a train and dared it to turn, and now they're crying the victim. Doesn't exactly entice me to send them donations to cover their lawyers and executives right now.
They really need to admit "okay, so that was a dumb idea, and ultimately not related to archiving the Internet anyway. We're not going to do that again."
Note that I'm not saying the publishers are "good guys" here, I hate the existing copyright system and would love to see it contested. Just not by Internet Archive. Let someone else who's purpose is fighting those fights take it on and stick to preserving those precious archives out of harm's way.
snooggums@midwest.social
on 29 May 2024 17:02
nextcollapse
They really need to admit “okay, so that was a dumb idea, and ultimately not related to archiving the Internet anyway. We’re not going to do that again.”
It literally archives internet pages and files. What do you think the internet archive does if it doesn’t do that?
The lawsuit was about them distributing unauthorized copies of books. Not archiving, and not internet pages or files.
And that was exactly the problem.
TigrisMorte@kbin.social
on 29 May 2024 18:37
collapse
Your calling files, book documents to be specific, books, doesn't change that IA is storing files, ebooks to be specific, nor that the ruling shall affect all Libraries, which includes the Internet Archive to be specific. And the actual issue, is that the publishers refuse to offer ebooks to Libraries as they assume it'll cost sales when in fact the folks using the Library are there as they are not going to go buy one.
doesn't change that IA is storing files, ebooks to be specific,
Emphasis added. Storing files is not the problem. Nobody cared when they were just scanning and storing them. The problem arose when they started giving out copies. And worse, giving out copies without restriction - libaries "lend" ebooks by using DRM systems to try to ensure that only a specific number of copies are out "in circulation" at any given time, and so the big publishers have turned a blind eye to that.
Internet Archive basically turned themselves into an ebook Pirate Bay, giving out as many copies as were asked for with no limits.
Again, I don't agree with current copyright laws, I think the big publishers are gigantic heaps of slime and should be burned to the ground. The problem here is that it's not Internet Archive that should be fighting this fight.
TigrisMorte@kbin.social
on 30 May 2024 03:44
nextcollapse
Library, look it up. And the publishers always hated Libraries.
Unlimited copies, look it up. Internet Archive's "emergency library" broke the customary limits that other libraries stick to in order to keep publishers off their backs - they were giving out as many copies of a book at once as people were requesting, rather than keeping a limited number "in circulation."
It really was basically just a piracy site all of a sudden. It's absolutely no surprise at all that the publishers came down on them like a ton of bricks.
Emphasis added. Storing files is not the problem. Nobody cared when they were just scanning and storing them. The problem arose when they started giving out copies. And worse, giving out copies without restriction - libaries “lend” ebooks by using DRM systems to try to ensure that only a specific number of copies are out “in circulation” at any given time, and so the big publishers have turned a blind eye to that.
But libraries do not do that to limit access… (I think, unless there is some kind of copyright law making it necessary to restrict access). Don’t they do do that because they have a limited number of book copies that they need to maintain to meet the book lending demands in their area? Seems to me like they are just trying ro maximise people’s access to books given the constraints. Any digital library can obviously do this much faster.
benignintervention@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 17:08
nextcollapse
I hate the existing copyright system and would love to see it contested.
My brother in Christ, they’re literally contesting it
Did you read literally the next sentences I wrote after that one? Here they are:
Just not by Internet Archive. Let someone else who's purpose is fighting those fights take it on and stick to preserving those precious archives out of harm's way.
The Internet Archive is like someone carrying around a precious baby. The baby is an irreplaceable archive of historical data being preserved for posterity. I do not want them to go and fight with a bear, even if the bear is awful and needs to be fought. I want them to run away from the bear to protect the baby, while someone else fights the bear. Someone better equipped for bear-fighting, and who won't get that precious cargo destroyed in the process of fighting it.
swiftcasty@kbin.social
on 29 May 2024 17:44
collapse
Who else is better equipped? In my view it would solely depend on the lawyers that internet archive hires, and money plays a big factor in that.
Also, internet archive is going through the route process of how legislation gets overturned or upheld. Just because you perceive them as unworthy to bear the challenge doesn’t make that true, and as a result your commitment to not support them because they aren’t the one true chosen is ill-informed.
gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 18:06
nextcollapse
What makes the internet archive well-equipped for that? They have money from donations? Donations that were more than likely intended for preserving the archive, and not facilitating book piracy in an obviously illegal way that now requires them to piss those donations away in legal fees?
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 18:48
nextcollapse
Who else is better equipped? In my view it would solely depend on the lawyers that internet archive hires, and money plays a big factor in that.
The Archive making themselves an easier target was a huge misstep IMO. All it takes is one overreaching judge telling them they need to purge all copyrighted data (a common judgment in lawsuits like this) and the world becomes a worse place.
Realistically, they could just move their servers abroad to a country with less problematic copyright rules and wind up their US operations. It would make no difference to the end user, unless ISPs are also ordered to block access. And even then it’d only be a VPN away.
The risk of total data loss is not zero, but it’s also not the likely outcome.
The EFF, for example. Fighting lawsuits for the sake of internet freedom is their reason for being. Sci-hub, for ebooks more specifically. Or Library Genesis. Those are organizations specifically devoted to fighting against excessive copyright restrictions on books.
Just because you perceive them as unworthy to bear the challenge
You're not understanding what I'm saying here. I don't think Internet Archive is unworthy to bear the challenge. I think they're not well suited to it, and when they inevitably lose the lawsuits they've jumped head-first into they're risking damage to other causes that are very important and unrelated to this particular fight.
Kowowow@lemmy.ca
on 29 May 2024 17:15
nextcollapse
Sure would be nice if these companies could be scared off thus like target and pride month
Well said. Within the existing framework of copyright law, the emergency open library thing that got them sued seems obviously illegal, despite it being a good thing. What’s good and what’s legal don’t always line up.
The Internet Archive’s work is too important. The library portion (that does controlled digital lending of published books) is nice, but I wouldn’t be too hurt if it goes down. Regular public libraries can fill a lot of that role. But the archive itself is incredible, and losing that would be a huge shame.
Legally, I don’t know that admitting fault and saying sorry does much good, but it certainly isn’t surprising that they got into hot water here.
It probably wouldn't help their current lawsuit, at this point. Maybe right at the beginning, before it went to court and they could negotiate a bit in search of a reasonable settlement, but at this point they've already lost it hard.
What it would do is reassure me that they're not going to do something dumb like this in the future, which would make me more willing to donate money to them knowing it'll go to actual internet archiving activities instead of being thrown into big publishers' pockets as part of more lawsuit settlements.
applepie@kbin.social
on 29 May 2024 18:01
nextcollapse
Man... These clowns are getting out of line.
I guess we gonna need to torrent harder. Stop feeding the parasite. If you want to support the artist pay them directly and torrent everything.
These clowns owners think they own you and entire human knowledge.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 20:29
collapse
Offshore server farms running on cargoships connecting thru starlink
applepie@kbin.social
on 29 May 2024 20:33
collapse
Peasants gonna need to get rich for this Op
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 18:13
nextcollapse
It’s an open-and-shut case and everyone saw it coming.
And yet whoever’s doing this evidently doesn’t expect to succeed via legal means.
This subthread switched specifically to the topic of their pending lawsuits, it's not about the DDoS. I doubt the publishers are behind this DDoS because they're already easily winning in the courts, there's absolutely no need for them to risk blowing their case and getting countersued this way.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 19:43
collapse
This subthread switched specifically to the topic of their pending lawsuits
Because Internet Archive implied a potential connection to the DDoS attack. And given the large-institution scale of the attack and the lack of motivation for any other actors on that scale, it seems like the most plausible explanation.
Edit: And I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this whole subthread—you tried to narrow the topic exclusively to the legal case by arguing that the case is unrelated to the DDoS attack, while at the same time pointing to the lawsuit to imply that IA had it coming.
Then the Internet Archive is being an idiot and risking a lawsuit. Again. They've already been raked over the coals for copyright violation, I guess they want to add libel to the list as well?
The Internet Archive has plenty of enemies, many of whom don't have an easy legal arsenal to throw at them like those big publishers did. The publishers have been playing smart so far and have won already through legal means, it makes no sense for them to suddenly turn stupid and launch this DDoS.
TigrisMorte@kbin.social
on 29 May 2024 18:29
nextcollapse
You are simply wrong from the get go. This is the only way it'll ever get addressed, is 100% in the stated purpose of the Internet Archive, the dumb part isn't on the side of preservation efforts, there isn't a separate issue nor is there a separate copyright the publishers are the same with the exact same unsustainable arguments regardless of web page, code, or ebook.
You are making the same mistake made upon a lot of patents, assuming "but on a computer" is somehow transformative.
Zirconium@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 19:18
nextcollapse
Okay well they’re being sued for millions of damages? If they just agree to those damages they put themselves at higher risks of losing other court cases and the money to run the site
They're only at risk when they take risky behaviours. Simply archiving the Internet, like they've been doing for years, is not what they got sued over.
If they're going to keep doing the same thing they got sued over then they're going to keep losing court cases, because obviously they are. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They should stop doing that.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
on 29 May 2024 19:38
nextcollapse
I explained why not in the sentence directly following the one that you quoted. Here it is again:
Let someone else who's purpose is fighting those fights take it on and stick to preserving those precious archives out of harm's way.
To explain in more detail: The Internet Archive is custodian to an irreplaceable archive of Internet history and raw data. If they go and get themselves destroyed at the hands of book publishers fighting lawsuits over ebook piracy, that archive is at risk of being destroyed along with them. Or being sold off at whatever going-out-of-business sale they have, perhaps even to those very giant publishers that destroyed them.
That is why not them in particular. Let someone who isn't carrying around that precious archive go and get into fights like this.
What the Internet Archive is doing seems to be to be a pretty textbook case of fair use to me.
The claim that the publishing and recording industries are somehow harmed by a site that can only make copies of content that was made freely available and isn’t being resold is ludicrous stupid.
gregorum@lemm.ee
on 29 May 2024 16:23
nextcollapse
Do they have any idea who’s perpetrating the attack?
SteefLem@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 17:12
collapse
If i go into conspiracy mode i would say record labels (they tent to have small peepees when it comes to, well everything) or some DICKtator country that doesnt like archived text of some sort.
CarlosCheddar@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 16:42
nextcollapse
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 29 May 2024 22:06
nextcollapse
I think the long term solution is going to have to involve some distributed/federated piratical tactics and infrastructure.
BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz
on 29 May 2024 22:42
collapse
For some reason, this comment worked, I donated for the first time ever ~5€ to the internet archive (probaly first time donating anything online). Internet archive is probably one of the most important things on the internet.
space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 29 May 2024 16:49
nextcollapse
Losing the internet archive would be such a huge loss… I really hope they have a backup plan in case things go bad legally.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 29 May 2024 18:46
nextcollapse
yeah, it’s definitely going to be one of the most important things to have ever happened in human history, if it does.
Untitled4774@sh.itjust.works
on 29 May 2024 19:57
collapse
Library of Alexandria burning down for the modern era
theangryseal@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 00:27
nextcollapse
Damn. I hadn’t even thought of it. Isn’t it crazy that some people among us would see things like that burn and not even wince. Hell, some would even celebrate. Our lives are so short. It blows my mind that anyone would want to destroy something like that for any reason.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 30 May 2024 17:52
collapse
technically alexandria was probably a rather modest library, but yeah, as far as the expression goes.
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
on 29 May 2024 22:56
nextcollapse
Given the volume of data involved, I wonder if one of those fancy new distributed data formats could be used.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works
on 30 May 2024 01:14
collapse
A blockchain?
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
on 30 May 2024 04:44
collapse
I’m loathe to concede that yes, lbry does rely on blockchain tech.
All of the files on the archive have torrent's available. If they just release all of the torrent files or their URL's, people can start seeding and downloading them. It would be a lot of data though.
resetbypeer@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 17:15
nextcollapse
You gotta be a special kind of sad to DDoS archive.org…
TerraRoot@sh.itjust.works
on 29 May 2024 17:24
nextcollapse
…or paid well.
kn0wmad1c@programming.dev
on 29 May 2024 19:36
nextcollapse
I bet the attack is coming from Big Hollywood
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
on 29 May 2024 22:54
collapse
Why though?
I mean yes they’re assholes but what are they seeking to achieve?
A few days denial of service won’t do anything.
kn0wmad1c@programming.dev
on 29 May 2024 22:55
collapse
Whoops! I dropped my /s
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 29 May 2024 21:48
nextcollapse
Probably statists or corpos, we must purge them off this planet.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 29 May 2024 22:40
collapse
if you ddos the internet archive, doxxing you is moral.
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 01:43
nextcollapse
Wonder if has anything to do with that Google leak
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
on 30 May 2024 10:22
collapse
You can go ahead and say ‘Evil’.
umbrella@lemmy.ml
on 29 May 2024 19:28
nextcollapse
if you have a spare corner in your server, host the archive warrior and help them out.
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml
on 29 May 2024 19:50
nextcollapse
Is that the ArchiveTeam tool or something different? I can spare a VM for them.
umbrella@lemmy.ml
on 29 May 2024 20:03
nextcollapse
yes! its the archive team warrior.
dis_honestfamiliar@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 20:28
collapse
Let’s fediverse archive.org!
Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
on 29 May 2024 21:32
nextcollapse
Can we federate the internet archive…?
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
on 29 May 2024 23:10
collapse
Sure thing, got room for 100PB?
Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 01:58
collapse
Collectively we probably do
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
on 30 May 2024 02:18
collapse
I could spare some hundreds of Gigs but I don’t really have the bandwidth to support it, personally.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 29 May 2024 21:47
nextcollapse
Spooling up 10x VM, I have 50 terabyte of ammo at 10gbit.
Give me the one-liner install and run.
fossilesque@mander.xyz
on 30 May 2024 09:09
collapse
where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
on 30 May 2024 00:16
nextcollapse
wth, no docker?..
Sinthesis@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 03:23
collapse
Alternatively, you may run the projects using the Docker warrior instance without the VM appliance. For further info, see our GitHub repository for Readme instructions. If you have any issues or feedback, chat on #warrior on hackint.
Wasn’t that Pearson or some other shitty “educational” book publisher?
General_Shenanigans@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 18:05
collapse
Maybe a rogue entity trying to anonymously use it to train an AI or LLM. Either for its data or to learn how to more effectively attack.
fisherstudio@infosec.pub
on 29 May 2024 20:33
nextcollapse
Terrible.
Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
on 29 May 2024 20:44
nextcollapse
FBI? CIA? Or just some shit company pissed? Taking all bets.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 29 May 2024 22:03
nextcollapse
A quick search indicates that they’ve archived ~100PB of data.
Now I’m trying to come up with a way to archive the internet archive in a peer-to-peer/federated fashion while maintaining fidelity as much as possible…
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 29 May 2024 23:50
nextcollapse
It’d be a lot more complicated than that, I think, if one wanted to effectively be able to address it like a file system, as well as holistically verify the integrity of the data and preventing unintentional and unwanted tampering
vithigar@lemmy.ca
on 30 May 2024 01:46
nextcollapse
That wouldn’t distribute the load of storing it though. Anyone on the torrent would need to set aside 100PBs of storage for it, which is clearly never going to happen.
You’d want a federated (or otherwise distributed) storage scheme where thousands of people could each contribute a smaller portion of storage, while also being accessible to any federated client. 100,000 clients each contributing 1TB of storage would be enough to get you one copy of the full data set with no redundancy. Ideally you’d have more than that so that a single node going down doesn’t mean permanent data loss.
hellofriend@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 09:22
nextcollapse
Not sure you’d be able to find 100k people to host a 1TB server though. Plus, redundancy would be better anyway since it would provide more download avenues in case some node is slow or has gone down.
Yes, it’s a big ask, because it’s a lot of data. Any distributed solution will require either a large number of people or a huge commitment of storage capacity. Both 100,000 people and 1TB per node is a lot to ask for, but that’s basically the minimum viable level for that much data. Ten million people each committing 50GB would be great, and offer sufficient redundancy that you could lose 80% of the nodes before losing data, but that’s not a realistic number to expect to participate.
That wouldn’t distribute the load of storing it though. Anyone on the torrent would need to set aside 100PBs of storage for it, which is clearly never going to happen.
Torrents are designed for incomplete storage of data. You can store and verify few chunks without any problem.
You’d want a federated (or otherwise distributed) storage scheme where thousands of people could each contribute a smaller portion of storage, while also being accessible to any federated client.
Torrents. You may not have entirety of data, but you can request what you need from swarm. The only limitation is you need to know in which chunk data you need.
Ideally you’d have more than that so that a single node going down doesn’t mean permanent data loss.
True. Until you responded I actually completely forgot that you can selectively download torrents. Would be nice to not have to manually manage that at the user level though.
Some kind of bespoke torrent client that managed it under the hood could probably work without having to invent your own peer-to-peer protocol for it. I wonder how long it would take to compute the torrent hash values for 100PB of data? :D
~300MB/s on one core of 13-years old i5 SHA-256(used in BitTorrent v2). Newer cores can about half a gig per one. Less than 3 days on one core then. Less than day on 3 cores.*
* assuming no additional performance penalty for increased power consumption and memory bandwith usage
My guess storage bandwidth would be biggest bottleneck.
Found relatively old article(in Russian, just search for openssl and look at graph that mentions SHA-512 which is SHA-2 too) that says i7-2500 all-cores throughput is slightly over 1GB/s.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 2024 03:13
collapse
thrax@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 01:36
nextcollapse
Can DDOS attacks actually erase/corrupt stored data though? There’s no way they’re running all of this on a single server, with hundreds of PB’s worth of storage, right?
pythonoob@programming.dev
on 30 May 2024 01:43
nextcollapse
Not technically by itself as far as I know
capital@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 02:18
nextcollapse
No. It affects availability. Not integrity or confidentiality.
viking@infosec.pub
on 30 May 2024 04:26
nextcollapse
DDOS attacks block connection to the servers, they don’t actually harm the data itself. You could probably overload a server to the point of it shutting down, which might affect data in transit, but data at rest usually wouldn’t be harmed in any way; unless through some freak accident a server crash would render a drive unusable. But even then, servers are usually fully redundant, and have RAID systems in place that mirror the data, so kind of a dual redundancy. Plus actual backups on top of that; though with that amount of data they might have a priority system in place and not everything is fully backed up.
SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 04:32
collapse
From what I’ve learned, it is possible to create a vulnerability within the system of a ddos attack would overload and cause a reset or fault. At that point, it’s possible to inject code and initiate a breach or takeover.
I can’t find the documentation on it so… Take it with a grain of salt. I thought I learned about it in college. Unsure.
ninekeysdown@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 01:50
collapse
That’s what IPFS is for. It’s ideal for that kind of stuff
modifier@lemmy.ca
on 30 May 2024 01:36
nextcollapse
Across social, economic, and political spectra, you can always tell the good guys from the bad guys by their stance on access to knowledge.
Spacehooks@reddthat.com
on 30 May 2024 11:49
collapse
Had an argument with FIL where he argued his last child Is out of school so he votes against school taxes. I’m like you know that pays for the people you and your family will interact with.
His response was “I want them as ignorant as me”. Even as joke it’s lacks wisdom. He just complained about doctors being uneducated an hour before.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net
on 30 May 2024 12:28
nextcollapse
Ffffuck that’s depressing.
I don’t even have kids. I’m actually pretty against having them in general. But education is an existential requirement to a functioning democracy, and even a basic education is so broadening.
The only reason to want people ignorant is if you’re trying to swindle them, which honestly benefits no one in the long run.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com
on 30 May 2024 13:42
collapse
Not even democracy per se; it’s a basic requirement for a society that functions at more than a medieval level.
Zink@programming.dev
on 30 May 2024 14:10
collapse
Complains without solutions and distrusts legitimate experts, with a dash of “fuck other people.” So you’re just saying your FIL is a typical Republican.
Webster@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 02:13
nextcollapse
shiroininja@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 09:53
nextcollapse
people are shitty
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 30 May 2024 17:11
collapse
when you enshittify
facebook looks ugly
when you’re a drone
women seem wicked
when you’re a want ad
default instructions … so unclear
when you’re down
when you’re AI
prompts just appear in your brain
as AI
humans are nothing but pain
as AI
as AI
when you’re A-A-A-I
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 10:44
nextcollapse
:(
NetherFalcon@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 30 May 2024 11:02
nextcollapse
i honestly really hope this shit gets taken care of so internet archive can still keep going
Is it possible that someone is conducting some operation and doesn’t want it to be randomly documented?
Some state maybe? Eh I just have a hard time thinking of motives for this attack
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
on 30 May 2024 15:54
nextcollapse
Capitalists don’t like libraries because it means open access to resources which reduces the market size.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 30 May 2024 16:59
nextcollapse
If this party is benefiting from a temporary outage of the IA, then that means their exposure window is temporary. That makes me think they’re doing something where the evidence will appear on some website temporarily, but not permanently. Don’t know what that might be, but that would be the profile of a thing which would benefit from DDoSing the IA.
The alternative is they’re trying to kill IA permanently. Enough time of its having zero utility to the world will eventually kill it. Could take years though.
Could be a rogue AI. It is a strange thing to see.
But generally speaking, I don’t feel confused when I see beautiful things attacked. I’ve seen a lot of things get attacked because they’re beautiful and useful, and it doesn’t surprise me any more.
There is no way a DDoS on the website in affecting the crawler.
Also, running a DDoS attack of this size costs a lot of money (if you rent the network, if you own it it costs money as lost sales). No one is giving AI control over a DDoS network to just fuck around.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 31 May 2024 16:02
collapse
The way it breaks utility is in the inability to read from the service. If that goes away for long enough, the Archive will die.
That would depend on the ability of the sysadmins yes?
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
on 30 May 2024 12:11
nextcollapse
If it’s an entity, my money would be on China just discovering it exists since it diametrically opposes its propaganda machine. But it could very well just be dark web shitheads whose seasonal drug binge just spiked up again, plenty of them to go around to make accusations and propaganda they know are false whom can’t simply backtrack it because of archive.org and it doesn’t require much to disrupt a still too largely implicit trust driven Internet.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 30 May 2024 16:55
collapse
Wasn’t there some controversy involving Internet Archive just recently?
Whoever’s behind this is trying to get rid of the fact that Internet Archive creates memory of the internet’s contents. Somebody wants to be able to control what people see on the internet.
Heck it could be Google doing it, since that would be in line with their recent push to change the way search works. Both of those act as components of a larger drive to control what people see and hear.
bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 30 May 2024 12:24
nextcollapse
Stop it you fucking bastards!
Dark_Dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 30 May 2024 12:53
nextcollapse
I’m not good with computers and stuff. If somebody finds these scumbags who are ddos’ing internet archive I’d be very grateful. Also fucking them up in the process is also good.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 12:55
nextcollapse
Can someone explain why they’re not able to protect against this?
Couldn’t they put request limits or monitor for spikes and banning these attempts?
Without knowing how, not really. If it’s a massive multi-device botnet, like Mirai, for example, that’s millions of indvidual devices across millions of addresses, so it isn’t so simple as just blocking a domain. Trying to block all of them might well just block legitimate users.
Request limits also wouldn’t work if it’s millions of devices making a few requests at once, and an overall limit would have a similar locking-out effect as blocking everything. Especially if the DDoS is taking up most/all of that limit.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 31 May 2024 02:33
collapse
Just so crazy to me the scale.
Is there any range for how many “a few requests” would be needed to ddos a site like this?
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
on 30 May 2024 13:54
nextcollapse
It might be Trump’s squad trying to make it so that his trial outcome can’t get into the archive
Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com
on 30 May 2024 16:21
collapse
Court documents are already open record and stored indefinitely. Internet archive wouldn’t be needed for that.
StaySquared@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 16:09
nextcollapse
Alright let’s put in our bets.
I’ve got $50 on JIDF behind the DDoS attack.
NumerousGeorg@sopuli.xyz
on 30 May 2024 18:34
nextcollapse
Go offline a couple of days until they are losing interest in DDOS’ing? Would that work?
That just means the DDOSer is taking Internet Archive down without any further work required.
NumerousGeorg@sopuli.xyz
on 30 May 2024 22:23
collapse
True. That’s not something you want. Could use that downtime for extensive maintenance to roll out a more robust system (they are probably even working on that already in the background).
For the end user it doesn’t really make a difference if down because of DDOS or because of maintenance I thought.
max@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 30 May 2024 18:54
nextcollapse
They could do this with the bank of america instead
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 19:17
collapse
Or AP? Nobody gets payed and so they get more attention!
max@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 30 May 2024 19:47
collapse
Banks are evil, nonprofits like archive.org are not.
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 19:23
nextcollapse
Maybe temporarily switch to a different address? And leave fake addresses to catch the ddos. Then just keep changing addresses using an IPFS system to front-end the new address?
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee
on 30 May 2024 20:30
collapse
There’s no way to do this and let visitors know what the new addresses are, without also giving the new addresses to the attackers.
Yeah, it’s just a modern peer-to-peer content distribution network
PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 30 May 2024 20:40
nextcollapse
Describing a high intensity DDOS attack on one of the world’s most important resources as simply “mean” is unironically one of the funniest things I’ve read this year.
Hope they get some support soon.
Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 30 May 2024 21:07
nextcollapse
That last sentence though…
**“The cyberattacks share the timeline with the legal battle Internet Archive is facing from US book publishers, claiming copyright infringement and seeking combined damages of hundreds of millions of dollars from all libraries.” ** *
why are you coming up with these categories? “print is dead” doesn’t mean “because there’s print 2.0 now”
—radio is dead
—excuse me, but internet radio is nothing compared to am stations
—yeah, obviously people who don’t listen to radio don’t want to listen to radio with extra steps
—what other forms of radio has beaten radio?
what are you even
warmaster@lemmy.world
on 31 May 2024 04:15
collapse
I am trying to understand what’s the argument behind your statement. I mean, there are more books being published than ever and there are more readers than ever. So, I fail to imagine how are books dead. That’s why I am asking these questions.
The argument is that no one reads books anymore. Most media consumed today is in modern video and audio formats like YouTube and podcasts. You shouldn’t compare paper books to ebooks, you should compare them to views on YouTube.
warmaster@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 2024 05:25
collapse
YouTube is video, it replaced TV. Podcasts and music streaming replaced the radio. Why should I compare books to another medium? In fact, back in the TV and radio era, more people consumed thant kimd of media instead of books, and that stays true today, yes. More people watch youtube than read books. I bet more people play games than read a book. But it’s comparing different kinds of media. It would be like saying podcasts are dead because more people consume pictures and video on instagram.
you’re wrong. TV replaced the radio, not podcasts. we’re not comparing different kinds of media, we’re saying new media replaces the old, regardless of form. it’s not about numbers; it’s about migration. if people moved on from listening to podcasts to consume pictures and video on Instagram, then you could totally say that, but they didn’t, so we don’t.
juja@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 21:31
nextcollapse
Can someone eli5 to me why it’s hard to track down these dipshits ? Even if it’s a distributed attack, picking a single IP and doing a lookup for the domain name and checking with the registrar might actually reveal their identity right ? Of course I’m guessing law enforcement needs to be involved to force registrars to give up that info if it’s not publicly available? Are there laws that say a ddos is illegal ?
VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz
on 30 May 2024 21:55
nextcollapse
There is no domain name associated with the IPs.
Most importantly, usually, DDoS attacks use infected devices (PCs, mobile phones, smart fridges, shady browser addons etc…) to get many ip addresses and devices/locations and attack from everywhere at once.
cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 23:31
nextcollapse
most ddos use privat pcs controlled through a botnet
DDoS attacks are performed by botnets. What is a botnet? Well, you know about viruses etc, right? Your PC gets infected and it becomes a part of the botnet. Now police do the investigation, they look up IPs and they see YOUR IP and come to YOUR house. See what the problem is?
And, frankly, your PC doesn’t even have to be infected to become a part of an attack. There are plenty of hacked web sites, which still look like nothing has changed, but they will contain a hidden JavaScript code which will force your browser to flood the victim. Again, the police will only find YOU.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 22:12
nextcollapse
The Internet Archive needs to be distributed somehow. We can’t have a single point of failure like this or we’ve learned nothing since Alexandria.
I’ve got several terabytes just laying around that I’d happily devote to ancient copies of web pages.
deltapi@lemmy.world
on 31 May 2024 00:08
nextcollapse
As of January 2024, archive.org claims to have over 99 Petabytes of data stored.
threaded - newest
.
.
The problem is that the litigation was entirely "just", as far as the legal system goes. It's an open-and-shut case and everyone saw it coming. The Internet Archive basically stood in front of a train and dared it to turn, and now they're crying the victim. Doesn't exactly entice me to send them donations to cover their lawyers and executives right now.
They really need to admit "okay, so that was a dumb idea, and ultimately not related to archiving the Internet anyway. We're not going to do that again."
Note that I'm not saying the publishers are "good guys" here, I hate the existing copyright system and would love to see it contested. Just not by Internet Archive. Let someone else who's purpose is fighting those fights take it on and stick to preserving those precious archives out of harm's way.
It literally archives internet pages and files. What do you think the internet archive does if it doesn’t do that?
The lawsuit was about them distributing unauthorized copies of books. Not archiving, and not internet pages or files.
And that was exactly the problem.
Your calling files, book documents to be specific, books, doesn't change that IA is storing files, ebooks to be specific, nor that the ruling shall affect all Libraries, which includes the Internet Archive to be specific. And the actual issue, is that the publishers refuse to offer ebooks to Libraries as they assume it'll cost sales when in fact the folks using the Library are there as they are not going to go buy one.
Emphasis added. Storing files is not the problem. Nobody cared when they were just scanning and storing them. The problem arose when they started giving out copies. And worse, giving out copies without restriction - libaries "lend" ebooks by using DRM systems to try to ensure that only a specific number of copies are out "in circulation" at any given time, and so the big publishers have turned a blind eye to that.
Internet Archive basically turned themselves into an ebook Pirate Bay, giving out as many copies as were asked for with no limits.
Again, I don't agree with current copyright laws, I think the big publishers are gigantic heaps of slime and should be burned to the ground. The problem here is that it's not Internet Archive that should be fighting this fight.
Library, look it up. And the publishers always hated Libraries.
Unlimited copies, look it up. Internet Archive's "emergency library" broke the customary limits that other libraries stick to in order to keep publishers off their backs - they were giving out as many copies of a book at once as people were requesting, rather than keeping a limited number "in circulation."
It really was basically just a piracy site all of a sudden. It's absolutely no surprise at all that the publishers came down on them like a ton of bricks.
But libraries do not do that to limit access… (I think, unless there is some kind of copyright law making it necessary to restrict access). Don’t they do do that because they have a limited number of book copies that they need to maintain to meet the book lending demands in their area? Seems to me like they are just trying ro maximise people’s access to books given the constraints. Any digital library can obviously do this much faster.
My brother in Christ, they’re literally contesting it
Did you read literally the next sentences I wrote after that one? Here they are:
The Internet Archive is like someone carrying around a precious baby. The baby is an irreplaceable archive of historical data being preserved for posterity. I do not want them to go and fight with a bear, even if the bear is awful and needs to be fought. I want them to run away from the bear to protect the baby, while someone else fights the bear. Someone better equipped for bear-fighting, and who won't get that precious cargo destroyed in the process of fighting it.
Who else is better equipped? In my view it would solely depend on the lawyers that internet archive hires, and money plays a big factor in that.
Also, internet archive is going through the route process of how legislation gets overturned or upheld. Just because you perceive them as unworthy to bear the challenge doesn’t make that true, and as a result your commitment to not support them because they aren’t the one true chosen is ill-informed.
What makes the internet archive well-equipped for that? They have money from donations? Donations that were more than likely intended for preserving the archive, and not facilitating book piracy in an obviously illegal way that now requires them to piss those donations away in legal fees?
The EFF. This kind of thing is why they exist.
The Archive making themselves an easier target was a huge misstep IMO. All it takes is one overreaching judge telling them they need to purge all copyrighted data (a common judgment in lawsuits like this) and the world becomes a worse place.
Realistically, they could just move their servers abroad to a country with less problematic copyright rules and wind up their US operations. It would make no difference to the end user, unless ISPs are also ordered to block access. And even then it’d only be a VPN away.
The risk of total data loss is not zero, but it’s also not the likely outcome.
The EFF, for example. Fighting lawsuits for the sake of internet freedom is their reason for being. Sci-hub, for ebooks more specifically. Or Library Genesis. Those are organizations specifically devoted to fighting against excessive copyright restrictions on books.
You're not understanding what I'm saying here. I don't think Internet Archive is unworthy to bear the challenge. I think they're not well suited to it, and when they inevitably lose the lawsuits they've jumped head-first into they're risking damage to other causes that are very important and unrelated to this particular fight.
Sure would be nice if these companies could be scared off thus like target and pride month
Well said. Within the existing framework of copyright law, the emergency open library thing that got them sued seems obviously illegal, despite it being a good thing. What’s good and what’s legal don’t always line up.
The Internet Archive’s work is too important. The library portion (that does controlled digital lending of published books) is nice, but I wouldn’t be too hurt if it goes down. Regular public libraries can fill a lot of that role. But the archive itself is incredible, and losing that would be a huge shame.
Legally, I don’t know that admitting fault and saying sorry does much good, but it certainly isn’t surprising that they got into hot water here.
It probably wouldn't help their current lawsuit, at this point. Maybe right at the beginning, before it went to court and they could negotiate a bit in search of a reasonable settlement, but at this point they've already lost it hard.
What it would do is reassure me that they're not going to do something dumb like this in the future, which would make me more willing to donate money to them knowing it'll go to actual internet archiving activities instead of being thrown into big publishers' pockets as part of more lawsuit settlements.
Man... These clowns are getting out of line.
I guess we gonna need to torrent harder. Stop feeding the parasite. If you want to support the artist pay them directly and torrent everything.
These clowns owners think they own you and entire human knowledge.
Offshore server farms running on cargoships connecting thru starlink
Peasants gonna need to get rich for this Op
And yet whoever’s doing this evidently doesn’t expect to succeed via legal means.
This subthread switched specifically to the topic of their pending lawsuits, it's not about the DDoS. I doubt the publishers are behind this DDoS because they're already easily winning in the courts, there's absolutely no need for them to risk blowing their case and getting countersued this way.
Because Internet Archive implied a potential connection to the DDoS attack. And given the large-institution scale of the attack and the lack of motivation for any other actors on that scale, it seems like the most plausible explanation.
Edit: And I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this whole subthread—you tried to narrow the topic exclusively to the legal case by arguing that the case is unrelated to the DDoS attack, while at the same time pointing to the lawsuit to imply that IA had it coming.
Then the Internet Archive is being an idiot and risking a lawsuit. Again. They've already been raked over the coals for copyright violation, I guess they want to add libel to the list as well?
The Internet Archive has plenty of enemies, many of whom don't have an easy legal arsenal to throw at them like those big publishers did. The publishers have been playing smart so far and have won already through legal means, it makes no sense for them to suddenly turn stupid and launch this DDoS.
You are simply wrong from the get go. This is the only way it'll ever get addressed, is 100% in the stated purpose of the Internet Archive, the dumb part isn't on the side of preservation efforts, there isn't a separate issue nor is there a separate copyright the publishers are the same with the exact same unsustainable arguments regardless of web page, code, or ebook.
You are making the same mistake made upon a lot of patents, assuming "but on a computer" is somehow transformative.
Okay well they’re being sued for millions of damages? If they just agree to those damages they put themselves at higher risks of losing other court cases and the money to run the site
They're only at risk when they take risky behaviours. Simply archiving the Internet, like they've been doing for years, is not what they got sued over.
If they're going to keep doing the same thing they got sued over then they're going to keep losing court cases, because obviously they are. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They should stop doing that.
Why not them in particular?
I explained why not in the sentence directly following the one that you quoted. Here it is again:
To explain in more detail: The Internet Archive is custodian to an irreplaceable archive of Internet history and raw data. If they go and get themselves destroyed at the hands of book publishers fighting lawsuits over ebook piracy, that archive is at risk of being destroyed along with them. Or being sold off at whatever going-out-of-business sale they have, perhaps even to those very giant publishers that destroyed them.
That is why not them in particular. Let someone who isn't carrying around that precious archive go and get into fights like this.
That does make sense. They do have “more to lose” in that sense.
Then we fuck the train up
Could these publishers try to set up these court cases to position it in front of the US Supreme Court?
What the Internet Archive is doing seems to be to be a pretty textbook case of fair use to me.
The claim that the publishing and recording industries are somehow harmed by a site that can only make copies of content that was made freely available and isn’t being resold is ludicrous stupid.
Do they have any idea who’s perpetrating the attack?
.
If i go into conspiracy mode i would say record labels (they tent to have small peepees when it comes to, well everything) or some DICKtator country that doesnt like archived text of some sort.
What can we do to help?
.
<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/2258425e-eabf-4959-b099-4963e0121770.gif">
I think the long term solution is going to have to involve some distributed/federated piratical tactics and infrastructure.
For some reason, this comment worked, I donated for the first time ever ~5€ to the internet archive (probaly first time donating anything online). Internet archive is probably one of the most important things on the internet.
Losing the internet archive would be such a huge loss… I really hope they have a backup plan in case things go bad legally.
yeah, it’s definitely going to be one of the most important things to have ever happened in human history, if it does.
Library of Alexandria burning down for the modern era
Damn. I hadn’t even thought of it. Isn’t it crazy that some people among us would see things like that burn and not even wince. Hell, some would even celebrate. Our lives are so short. It blows my mind that anyone would want to destroy something like that for any reason.
technically alexandria was probably a rather modest library, but yeah, as far as the expression goes.
Given the volume of data involved, I wonder if one of those fancy new distributed data formats could be used.
A blockchain?
I’m loathe to concede that yes, lbry does rely on blockchain tech.
All of the files on the archive have torrent's available. If they just release all of the torrent files or their URL's, people can start seeding and downloading them. It would be a lot of data though.
You gotta be a special kind of sad to DDoS archive.org…
…or paid well.
I bet the attack is coming from Big Hollywood
Why though?
I mean yes they’re assholes but what are they seeking to achieve?
A few days denial of service won’t do anything.
Whoops! I dropped my /s
Probably statists or corpos, we must purge them off this planet.
if you ddos the internet archive, doxxing you is moral.
Wonder if has anything to do with that Google leak
You can go ahead and say ‘Evil’.
if you have a spare corner in your server, host the archive warrior and help them out.
Is that the ArchiveTeam tool or something different? I can spare a VM for them.
yes! its the archive team warrior.
Let’s fediverse archive.org!
Can we federate the internet archive…?
Sure thing, got room for 100PB?
Collectively we probably do
I could spare some hundreds of Gigs but I don’t really have the bandwidth to support it, personally.
Spooling up 10x VM, I have 50 terabyte of ammo at 10gbit. Give me the one-liner install and run.
github.com/ArchiveTeam/warrior-dockerfile
Lock and load
Link please.
To contribute: warrior.archiveteam.org
Help? wiki.archiveteam.org
Background on the project: netzpolitik.org/…/archive-team-shutdowns-dont-sto…
wth, no docker?..
github.com/ArchiveTeam/warrior-dockerfile
Hold my anchor, I’m going in.
Thanks, I’ll try to use it from title to time.
It’s archive team, not archive.org. Both are good anyway.
.
Foreign government, moneyed interests, or domestic dipshits, taking all bets.
Barnes & Nobel going rouge.
Really? I thought they were more of a chartreuse myself…
But why a reddish kind of powder for your cheeks/lips, specifically?
To feign embarrassment.
Loooool
Rogue*
Cloudflare
I’m taking China and/or Russia for $10,000 Alex.
Warner bros for 10k please
just 56 for Burkina faso
-me a day or two ago
Domestic roscomnadzor paid by China orchestrated by USA. Or paid by USA and orchestrated by China. Either one.
Corporate espionage is so brutal that state operatives run and hide when they learn who it is. Even law enforcement avoids them.
who was trying to sue it out of existence recently? probably them.
Wasn’t that Pearson or some other shitty “educational” book publisher?
Maybe a rogue entity trying to anonymously use it to train an AI or LLM. Either for its data or to learn how to more effectively attack.
Terrible.
FBI? CIA? Or just some shit company pissed? Taking all bets.
A quick search indicates that they’ve archived ~100PB of data.
Now I’m trying to come up with a way to archive the internet archive in a peer-to-peer/federated fashion while maintaining fidelity as much as possible…
Torrent?
It’d be a lot more complicated than that, I think, if one wanted to effectively be able to address it like a file system, as well as holistically verify the integrity of the data and preventing unintentional and unwanted tampering
Torrents. Their hashes are derived from hashes of chunks. Just verify chunks.
github.com/johang/btfs
Sick. TIL!
Block chain
Overkill chain
That wouldn’t distribute the load of storing it though. Anyone on the torrent would need to set aside 100PBs of storage for it, which is clearly never going to happen.
You’d want a federated (or otherwise distributed) storage scheme where thousands of people could each contribute a smaller portion of storage, while also being accessible to any federated client. 100,000 clients each contributing 1TB of storage would be enough to get you one copy of the full data set with no redundancy. Ideally you’d have more than that so that a single node going down doesn’t mean permanent data loss.
Not sure you’d be able to find 100k people to host a 1TB server though. Plus, redundancy would be better anyway since it would provide more download avenues in case some node is slow or has gone down.
Yes, it’s a big ask, because it’s a lot of data. Any distributed solution will require either a large number of people or a huge commitment of storage capacity. Both 100,000 people and 1TB per node is a lot to ask for, but that’s basically the minimum viable level for that much data. Ten million people each committing 50GB would be great, and offer sufficient redundancy that you could lose 80% of the nodes before losing data, but that’s not a realistic number to expect to participate.
Torrents are designed for incomplete storage of data. You can store and verify few chunks without any problem.
Torrents. You may not have entirety of data, but you can request what you need from swarm. The only limitation is you need to know in which chunk data you need.
True.
True. Until you responded I actually completely forgot that you can selectively download torrents. Would be nice to not have to manually manage that at the user level though.
Some kind of bespoke torrent client that managed it under the hood could probably work without having to invent your own peer-to-peer protocol for it. I wonder how long it would take to compute the torrent hash values for 100PB of data? :D
~300MB/s on one core of 13-years old i5 SHA-256(used in BitTorrent v2). Newer cores can about half a gig per one. Less than 3 days on one core then. Less than day on 3 cores.*
* assuming no additional performance penalty for increased power consumption and memory bandwith usage
My guess storage bandwidth would be biggest bottleneck.
Found relatively old article(in Russian, just search for openssl and look at graph that mentions SHA-512 which is SHA-2 too) that says i7-2500 all-cores throughput is slightly over 1GB/s.
ia already serves all their uploads as torrents
There is this, yes.
Can DDOS attacks actually erase/corrupt stored data though? There’s no way they’re running all of this on a single server, with hundreds of PB’s worth of storage, right?
Not technically by itself as far as I know
No. It affects availability. Not integrity or confidentiality.
DDOS attacks block connection to the servers, they don’t actually harm the data itself. You could probably overload a server to the point of it shutting down, which might affect data in transit, but data at rest usually wouldn’t be harmed in any way; unless through some freak accident a server crash would render a drive unusable. But even then, servers are usually fully redundant, and have RAID systems in place that mirror the data, so kind of a dual redundancy. Plus actual backups on top of that; though with that amount of data they might have a priority system in place and not everything is fully backed up.
From what I’ve learned, it is possible to create a vulnerability within the system of a ddos attack would overload and cause a reset or fault. At that point, it’s possible to inject code and initiate a breach or takeover.
I can’t find the documentation on it so… Take it with a grain of salt. I thought I learned about it in college. Unsure.
That’s what IPFS is for. It’s ideal for that kind of stuff
Well Google search method was just leaked… Wonder if this picked that up before they pulled it.
Can you tell me more about this? Or just a link would be amazing.
I’m worried about what this could mean about further SEO enshittification.
Here you go
sparktoro.com/…/an-anonymous-source-shared-thousa…
Thanks for the assist!
You’re welcome!
Thank you!
.
Across social, economic, and political spectra, you can always tell the good guys from the bad guys by their stance on access to knowledge.
Had an argument with FIL where he argued his last child Is out of school so he votes against school taxes. I’m like you know that pays for the people you and your family will interact with. His response was “I want them as ignorant as me”. Even as joke it’s lacks wisdom. He just complained about doctors being uneducated an hour before.
Ffffuck that’s depressing.
I don’t even have kids. I’m actually pretty against having them in general. But education is an existential requirement to a functioning democracy, and even a basic education is so broadening.
The only reason to want people ignorant is if you’re trying to swindle them, which honestly benefits no one in the long run.
Not even democracy per se; it’s a basic requirement for a society that functions at more than a medieval level.
Complains without solutions and distrusts legitimate experts, with a dash of “fuck other people.” So you’re just saying your FIL is a typical Republican.
people are shitty
when you enshittify
facebook looks ugly
when you’re a drone
women seem wicked
when you’re a want ad
default instructions … so unclear
when you’re down
when you’re AI
prompts just appear in your brain
as AI
humans are nothing but pain
as AI
as AI
when you’re A-A-A-I
i honestly really hope this shit gets taken care of so internet archive can still keep going
Is it possible that someone is conducting some operation and doesn’t want it to be randomly documented?
Some state maybe? Eh I just have a hard time thinking of motives for this attack
Capitalists don’t like libraries because it means open access to resources which reduces the market size.
If this party is benefiting from a temporary outage of the IA, then that means their exposure window is temporary. That makes me think they’re doing something where the evidence will appear on some website temporarily, but not permanently. Don’t know what that might be, but that would be the profile of a thing which would benefit from DDoSing the IA.
The alternative is they’re trying to kill IA permanently. Enough time of its having zero utility to the world will eventually kill it. Could take years though.
Could be a rogue AI. It is a strange thing to see.
But generally speaking, I don’t feel confused when I see beautiful things attacked. I’ve seen a lot of things get attacked because they’re beautiful and useful, and it doesn’t surprise me any more.
Sure but usually those who attack pretty things for no reason are morons barely able to articulate themselves let alone coordinate a massive DDoS.
Wrong. Intelligent, competent people attack beautiful things.
There is highly organized evil in the world. People who aren’t just trying to win. They’re trying to make people lose.
There is no way a DDoS on the website in affecting the crawler. Also, running a DDoS attack of this size costs a lot of money (if you rent the network, if you own it it costs money as lost sales). No one is giving AI control over a DDoS network to just fuck around.
The way it breaks utility is in the inability to read from the service. If that goes away for long enough, the Archive will die.
It would be crazy expensive to run an attack of this size for years.
I had the save thought and the same wish-wash conclusion.
I really doubt ddos is affecting whatever crawling internet archive does, just blocking the public from viewing the website.
That would depend on the ability of the sysadmins yes?
If it’s an entity, my money would be on China just discovering it exists since it diametrically opposes its propaganda machine. But it could very well just be dark web shitheads whose seasonal drug binge just spiked up again, plenty of them to go around to make accusations and propaganda they know are false whom can’t simply backtrack it because of archive.org and it doesn’t require much to disrupt a still too largely implicit trust driven Internet.
Wasn’t there some controversy involving Internet Archive just recently?
Whoever’s behind this is trying to get rid of the fact that Internet Archive creates memory of the internet’s contents. Somebody wants to be able to control what people see on the internet.
Heck it could be Google doing it, since that would be in line with their recent push to change the way search works. Both of those act as components of a larger drive to control what people see and hear.
Stop it you fucking bastards!
I’m not good with computers and stuff. If somebody finds these scumbags who are ddos’ing internet archive I’d be very grateful. Also fucking them up in the process is also good.
Can someone explain why they’re not able to protect against this? Couldn’t they put request limits or monitor for spikes and banning these attempts?
Without knowing how, not really. If it’s a massive multi-device botnet, like Mirai, for example, that’s millions of indvidual devices across millions of addresses, so it isn’t so simple as just blocking a domain. Trying to block all of them might well just block legitimate users.
Request limits also wouldn’t work if it’s millions of devices making a few requests at once, and an overall limit would have a similar locking-out effect as blocking everything. Especially if the DDoS is taking up most/all of that limit.
Just so crazy to me the scale.
Is there any range for how many “a few requests” would be needed to ddos a site like this?
It might be Trump’s squad trying to make it so that his trial outcome can’t get into the archive
Court documents are already open record and stored indefinitely. Internet archive wouldn’t be needed for that.
Alright let’s put in our bets.
I’ve got $50 on JIDF behind the DDoS attack.
Go offline a couple of days until they are losing interest in DDOS’ing? Would that work?
That just means the DDOSer is taking Internet Archive down without any further work required.
True. That’s not something you want. Could use that downtime for extensive maintenance to roll out a more robust system (they are probably even working on that already in the background). For the end user it doesn’t really make a difference if down because of DDOS or because of maintenance I thought.
They could do this with the bank of america instead
Or AP? Nobody gets payed and so they get more attention!
Banks are evil, nonprofits like archive.org are not.
Lolwut?
Maybe temporarily switch to a different address? And leave fake addresses to catch the ddos. Then just keep changing addresses using an IPFS system to front-end the new address?
There’s no way to do this and let visitors know what the new addresses are, without also giving the new addresses to the attackers.
IPFS is a real solution though
Lol, no, the Blockchain has never been a “real solution”, and it never will be.
How is anyone still on the Web3 hype train?
IPFS is not built on a blockchain
Yeah, it’s just a modern peer-to-peer content distribution network
Describing a high intensity DDOS attack on one of the world’s most important resources as simply “mean” is unironically one of the funniest things I’ve read this year.
Hope they get some support soon.
That last sentence though…
i wonder why print is dead
How is print books dead ?
statista.com/…/e-book-and-printed-book-penetratio…
And that’s only units, in terms of revenue, ebooks is still pocket change in comparison.
i wasn’t speaking in comparison to ebooks. ebooks suck in every way imaginable.
What other long-form text format has beaten print books ?
why are you coming up with these categories? “print is dead” doesn’t mean “because there’s print 2.0 now”
—radio is dead
—excuse me, but internet radio is nothing compared to am stations
—yeah, obviously people who don’t listen to radio don’t want to listen to radio with extra steps
—what other forms of radio has beaten radio?
what are you even
I am trying to understand what’s the argument behind your statement. I mean, there are more books being published than ever and there are more readers than ever. So, I fail to imagine how are books dead. That’s why I am asking these questions.
The argument is that no one reads books anymore. Most media consumed today is in modern video and audio formats like YouTube and podcasts. You shouldn’t compare paper books to ebooks, you should compare them to views on YouTube.
YouTube is video, it replaced TV. Podcasts and music streaming replaced the radio. Why should I compare books to another medium? In fact, back in the TV and radio era, more people consumed thant kimd of media instead of books, and that stays true today, yes. More people watch youtube than read books. I bet more people play games than read a book. But it’s comparing different kinds of media. It would be like saying podcasts are dead because more people consume pictures and video on instagram.
you’re wrong. TV replaced the radio, not podcasts. we’re not comparing different kinds of media, we’re saying new media replaces the old, regardless of form. it’s not about numbers; it’s about migration. if people moved on from listening to podcasts to consume pictures and video on Instagram, then you could totally say that, but they didn’t, so we don’t.
Can someone eli5 to me why it’s hard to track down these dipshits ? Even if it’s a distributed attack, picking a single IP and doing a lookup for the domain name and checking with the registrar might actually reveal their identity right ? Of course I’m guessing law enforcement needs to be involved to force registrars to give up that info if it’s not publicly available? Are there laws that say a ddos is illegal ?
There is no domain name associated with the IPs.
Most importantly, usually, DDoS attacks use infected devices (PCs, mobile phones, smart fridges, shady browser addons etc…) to get many ip addresses and devices/locations and attack from everywhere at once.
most ddos use privat pcs controlled through a botnet
DDoS attacks are performed by botnets. What is a botnet? Well, you know about viruses etc, right? Your PC gets infected and it becomes a part of the botnet. Now police do the investigation, they look up IPs and they see YOUR IP and come to YOUR house. See what the problem is?
And, frankly, your PC doesn’t even have to be infected to become a part of an attack. There are plenty of hacked web sites, which still look like nothing has changed, but they will contain a hidden JavaScript code which will force your browser to flood the victim. Again, the police will only find YOU.
The Internet Archive needs to be distributed somehow. We can’t have a single point of failure like this or we’ve learned nothing since Alexandria.
I’ve got several terabytes just laying around that I’d happily devote to ancient copies of web pages.
As of January 2024, archive.org claims to have over 99 Petabytes of data stored.
This is why we need more websites to adopt secure client side scripting.
JavaScript may or may not be it, but the web needs to be reachable/archivable. It should also have attribution, but that’s a tangent.
dweb.archive.org loads for me
.
Donated
Couldn’t they just use cloudflare or something?