1.1.1.2 is their malware-blocking DNS, and 1.1.1.3 is their parental-controls DNS. If you want an unfiltered DNS, use 1.1.1.1 - which resolves archive.today just fine, although archive.today itself refuses to work on Cloudlfare DNS.

Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much.

[1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...

I'm wondering if Jani is possibly going to walk into the wrong party here and get burned. I did some public archival stuff about a decade ago and it was state sponsored and for the intelligence community. I'm not suggesting this is but it'll be very much of interest to competing intelligence services as it's an information control point. None of those are the sort of people you start pissing off by sticking your dick in it. FBI is likely just one of the actors here.

Perhaps Mr. Patokallio would like the same scrutiny applied to his own life now - it's only fair, and we have the technology.

You can't completely prevent the browser from sending the request—after all, it needs to figure out whether to block the website from reading the response.

However, browsers will first send a preflight request for non-simple requests before sending the actual request. If the DDOS were effective because the search operation was expensive, then the blog could put search behind a non-simple request, or require a valid CSRF token before performing the search.

> I know there are a number of headers used to control cross-site access to websites

Mostly these headers are designed around preventing reading content. Sending content generally does not require anything.

(As a kind of random tidbit, this is why csrf tokens are a thing, you can't prevent sending so websites test to see if you were able to read the token in a previous request)

This is partially historical. The rough rule is if it was possible to make the request without javascript then it doesn't need any special headers (preflight)

The linked blog contains a story about who funds archive today and they presumably don’t like being exposed.

Well if we are going to use this analogy, 20 years ago virus scanners also flagged malicious stuff from p2p as a virus, and people still thought putting malicious content on p2p was a shitty thing for someone to do (even if it was somewhat expected).

Nobody was shedding any tears 20 years ago for the virus makers who had their viruses flagged by virus scanners.

Given they are retroactively tampering with past archives it's not exactly trustworhy in the first place

I always thought that mainstream media sites with paywalls were pretty far down there in the tier list of websites though. Not sure if this analogy lands unless irony was the goal.

Sounds a bit like when "Finland geoblocked archive.today". In all actuality, there was no geoblocking of the site in Finland by any authorities or ISPs, but rather it was the website owner blocking all Finnish IPs after some undisclosed dispute with Finnish border agents. When something bad happens, people seem a bit too willing to give archive.today the benefit of the doubt.

I suggest you double-check that. Archive.today/archive.is is the one which bypasses paywalls and makes unreadable content readable, not archive.org

There's probably a worthwhile discussion to be had about what it takes for a site in this situation to be removed from blocklists. An apology? Surrender to authorities? Halting the malicious activity for a certain period of time?

Regardless, another user reports the attack is still ongoing[1], so this isn't a discussion that's going to happen about archive.today anytime soon.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474777

Also, they were caught tampering saved webpages as well, so the website cannot be trusted to fulfill it's main purpose anymore: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...

>Why?

Because once the problematic content is removed it should no longer be blocked.

>It's accurate

It is neither a C&C server for a botnet, nor any other server related to a botnet. I would not call it accurate.

>Nobody should ever use that site

It has a good reputation for archiving sites, has stead the test of time, and doesn't censor pages like archive.org does allowing you to actually see the history of news articles instead of them being deleted like archive.org does on occasion.

Because it's not the place of a DNS resolver to police the internet.