←back to thread

Internet Archive breached again through stolen access tokens

(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
492 points vladyslavfox | 1 comments | 20 Oct 24 15:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.283s | source
Show context
trompetenaccoun ◴[20 Oct 24 15:33 UTC] No.41895988[source]▶
We need archives built on decentralized storage. Don't get me wrong, I really like and support the work Internet Archive is doing, but preserving history is too important to entrust it solely to singular entities, which means singular points of failure.
replies(19): >>41896170 #>>41896389 #>>41896411 #>>41896420 #>>41897459 #>>41897680 #>>41897913 #>>41898320 #>>41898841 #>>41899160 #>>41899729 #>>41899779 #>>41899999 #>>41900368 #>>41901199 #>>41902340 #>>41904676 #>>41905019 #>>41907926 #
jdiff ◴[20 Oct 24 16:19 UTC] No.41896411[source]▶
This seems to get brought at least once in the comments for every one of these articles that pops up.

The IA has tried distributing their stores, but nowhere near enough people actually put their storage where their mouths are.

replies(6): >>41896653 #>>41897206 #>>41897450 #>>41897685 #>>41900958 #>>41905113 #
jonny_eh ◴[21 Oct 24 05:35 UTC] No.41900958[source]▶
Nearly every entry in the library has a torrent file (which is a distributed storage system), but with the index pages down, they're not accessible.
replies(7): >>41901134 #>>41902088 #>>41902677 #>>41903136 #>>41903263 #>>41903897 #>>41905654 #
highwaylights ◴[21 Oct 24 09:04 UTC] No.41902088[source]▶
You're correct, but even then you've still the problem of storage - the torrents are only useful (and there's a lot of them) if a sustainable number of seeds remain available.
replies(1): >>41903470 #
Wheatman ◴[21 Oct 24 12:33 UTC] No.41903470[source]▶
How abiut torrenting a collection of websites in one collection?

You can distribute less popular websites with more used ones to avoid losing it? And Torrents are good with transfering large files in my experience.

replies(1): >>41904313 #
baby_souffle ◴[21 Oct 24 14:06 UTC] No.41904313[source]▶
> You can distribute less popular websites with more used ones to avoid losing it?

So long as this distributed protocol has the concept of individual files, there _will_ be clients out there that allow the user to select `popular-site.archive.tar.gz` and not `less-popular.tar.gz` for download.

And what one person doesn't download... they can't seed back. Distributed stuff is really good for low cost, high scale distribution of in-demand content. It's _terrible_ for long term reliability/availability, though.

replies(1): >>41904619 #
armada651 ◴[21 Oct 24 14:35 UTC] No.41904619[source]▶
That is fundamentally the problem, no one wants to donate storage to host stuff they're not interested in.
replies(1): >>41906702 #
1. mrguyorama ◴[21 Oct 24 18:06 UTC] No.41906702[source]▶
More concretely, nobody wants to donate anything. They just want it to exist. Charity has never been a functional solution to normal coordination problems. We have centuries of evidence of this.