The infamous 'Archive Today' platform is reportedly conducting a strange DDoS offensive targeting a cybersecurity writer — Wikipedia is contemplating the removal of every link pointing to the Archive.
This email address is already linked to an account; please sign in.
Subscribe to our newsletter
The administrator of Archive Today has reportedly been conducting a DDoS (denial of service) operation against the private site of engineer Jani Patokallio for more than a month. This platform, viewed by many as a helpful tool for archiving data, is frequently referenced across the web, notably within Wikipedia. Currently, the digital encyclopedia is debating the deletion of every link pointing to Archive Today, Ars Technica reports.
Patokallio wrote that since January 11, Archive Today has utilized a JavaScript snippet that forces a visitor's browser to load his blog in the background, resulting in a major denial-of-service attack. Wikipedia, along with various websites, features numerous connections to Archive Today, and as a crisis response, is contemplating their deletion. The discussion is still ongoing, yet it indicates that nearly 15% of links to stored material are impossible to replace.
The circumstances have intensified to a stage where even ad-filtering extensions such as uBlock Origin are unintentionally obstructing the DDoS by eliminating the harmful script, Patokallio asserts. The fundamental cause of the assault is supposedly a dispute between the Archive's administrator and Patokallio, centering on a blog entry from 2023, in which the investigator examined how Archive Today functions.
The exposé appears largely favorable, even recommending that individuals contribute to Archive Today, since it offers a beneficial resource for the internet public. Inside the publication's details, Patokallio displays somewhat sparse and unsubstantiated results regarding the Archive's administrator's (or administrators') profiles and their revenue origins.
Slightly more than two years later, Heise Online recently noted that the FBI was looking for details about Archive Today, potentially starting the chain of occurrences. On January 8, an individual identified as "Nora Puchreiner" (probably a pseudonym) filed a GDPR grievance regarding Patokallio's blog, asserting that the entry from two years ago included private data and was libelous.
Patokallio mentions that he subsequently received a message from Archive Today requesting that he remove his online entry, though he maintained it was directed to his junk mail and he failed to view it until a significant time had passed. Certain interactions eventually resulted in a collapse of contact, leaving Patokallio to face a rather erratic tirade featuring various threats of defamation.
For additional background, even though the Wayback Machine is the most famous online archive, it possesses certain constraints. It's somewhat sluggish to open archived pages, and it fails to capture all the internal data, especially for sites that depend significantly on JavaScript to display components. Archive Today has gained more traction over the years as a choice that offers rapid availability. It's entirely free of charge, furthermore.
Keep Up with The Latest: Receive the 3DTested Newsletter
Receive 3DTested's top stories and detailed evaluations, delivered directly to your email.
The thoroughness of the Archive results from its disregard for most guidelines: it captures every piece of information on a site, including components that load dynamically, delivers pages quickly, and ignores the "robots.txt" file that Websites once relied on restricting automated access to curb excessive scraping. In contrast to the Wayback Machine, it apparently doesn't accept petitions for the removal of stored material, except for those of a legal nature.
The Archive is also purported to utilize a botnet to continue dodging efforts to hinder its crawler, and supposedly keeps a multitude of accounts on login- and even paywall-restricted sites to preserve the data found there, debatably Functioning within an ambiguous space concerning part of its material. This could have been the catalyst for an official inquiry, given that prominent news organizations don't look favorably upon applications that evade paywalls.
