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
Edit: Another r/seattle moderator (not the OP of the original post) has posted their technical writeup of the malware, which is detailed and definitely more in line with what we'd expect with this kind of PSA. While I stand by all criticisms of the OP moderator and their initial handling of the disclosure, you can find the details of the incident in this excellent write up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
Seems unlikely to be the case here if what one of the mods said is true:
> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)
Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently (if the presumably-deleted archive link was posted separately as a reply).
Perhaps, but it could also just be "take our word for it" devolving into more "take our extended word for it". Being prepared to make an alarming enough claim that it sparks discussion outside of the sub but being unwilling to provide evidence remains suspicious.
That suspicion becomes more grounded when the conversation with the subreddits mod regarding why the claim was made without a willingness to provide evidence looks like this:
>If you're going to make an allegation like this, it's necessary to be specific. Specifically, what is the malware, and what is the evidence that it was "injected"? This is "consult a security researcher" and "speak to the media" territory, not "mod announcement" territory.
>>No it's not. These archive sites are a legal gray area anyway. We don't have to consult anyone to decide not to allow the links. No we are not talking to the media, we're not providing research, or a proof. I'm not calling the mayor. We are reddit mods . This is purely about community management.
r/seattle's mod team has posted this technical debrief in response to this HN post. We are the "external site" that is kinda brigading them. Please read this before bothering them:
> tl;dr: Archive.today network sites sent a PDF link to an unrelated domain, even with JavaScript disabled
Is it a power trip stemming from a technical misunderstanding (archive.today exploited to deliver malware =/= archive.today attempting to deliver malware) or is it something else? In any case, reading the comments on reddit, seems like the mods are going out of their way to appeal to hysterics.
Seems like the moderators don't know what's going on and are blacklisting it out of abundance of caution. Cause whether the malware comes from the archived site or the archiver itself, it means the archiver isn't safe in a way. Which is fine. It's just ridiculous that someone is asking for details and getting ostracized as a result.
This attitude is extended when someone else asks a question about evidence, instead of replying to the question, the moderator sarcastically calls out the commentor for posting in the sub for the first time: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
Its unusual and arguably suspicious because this attitude is antithetical to the stated point of the thread: To make a PSA to the community. They've also limited the comment section to only flaired users, which seems quite unusual given that this thread is ground-zero for a newsworthy claim.
Eh, still think simplest explanation is most likely here, which is that there's no secret motive, but the mods and some users over there are just dumb. I don't mean because they're nontechnical or don't have randomly specific web knowledge (one of them actually does), it's about how they responded to people.
Now that the evidence is shared and reproducible, I agree with you. This should be an embarrassing moment for the r/seattle mods, but I somewhat doubt it will be. Glad a more level headed conversation found its way to HN.
What's to be embarassed? These are busy community moderators, not whitehat hackers. They don't owe anyone a writeup of technical vulnerabilities. They owe the community clear communication of rule changes and most people expect explanation of why rules were changed, and they delivered both.
They did actually made a technical claim, which is fine, but then when someone said this is serious and asked for details, they responded with attitude and defensiveness. The mods don't need to be white-hat hackers, and even if they were, they're still dumb. They could've just said, all we know at the moment is we kept getting redirected to this malware site, so we're blocking this.
The craziest part is the guy asking even apologized, probably cause he was getting downvoted too much and actually cares about appeasing them.
Edit: Another r/seattle moderator (not the OP of the original post) has posted their technical writeup of the malware, which is detailed and definitely more in line with what we'd expect with this kind of PSA. While I stand by all criticisms of the OP moderator and their initial handling of the disclosure, you can find the details of the incident in this excellent write up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...