edit: Maybe I should have titled this "claim to have discovered" as there is no external validation, and no write up. I thought I should post this in any case.
I'm confused though, it says the site injected malware into its archived form. But the HN title says archive.today injected the malware.
dpark•21m ago
You said the same thing twice. “The site” == archive.today
The claim is that archive.today is injecting malware into archived pages. Given some of the past behavior, this is not hard to believe.
LoganDark•17m ago
The archive.today site is the one injecting the malware, not the site being archived.
mahboi•10m ago
"It was discovered by a member of the mod team today that an article archived by archive.today had injected malware links into the archived article."
Idk, maybe this is just a typo, but grammatically this is saying the article injected the links.
LoganDark•8m ago
"into" there does make it sound like the archived site was being hostile to archivers, yeah (or archive.today in particular). But we already know archive.today does stuff like this.
Permik•21m ago
The writing had been on the wall for a while.
Hopefully this'll finally drive the usage of the site down.
LoganDark•17m ago
Surprised that using visitors for DDoS attacks wasn't enough already.
consumer451•1h ago
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 validation, and no write up. I thought I should post this in any case.
mahboi•28m ago
I'm confused though, it says the site injected malware into its archived form. But the HN title says archive.today injected the malware.
dpark•21m ago
The claim is that archive.today is injecting malware into archived pages. Given some of the past behavior, this is not hard to believe.
LoganDark•17m ago
mahboi•10m ago
Idk, maybe this is just a typo, but grammatically this is saying the article injected the links.
LoganDark•8m ago