Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Popular Dark Web Hosting Provider Got Hacked, 6,500 Sites Down (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the meanwhile-on-the-dark-web dept.

Daniel's Hosting, one of the largest providers of Dark Web hosting services, was hacked this week and taken offline, ZDNet reports. From a report: The hack took place on Thursday, November 15, according to Daniel Winzen, the software developer behind the hosting service. "As per my analysis it seems someone got access to the database and deleted all accounts," he said in a message posted on the DH portal today. Winzen said the server's root account was also deleted, and that all 6,500+ Dark Web services hosted on the platform are now gone. "Unfortunately, all data is lost and per design, there are no backups," Winzen told ZDNet in an email today. "I will bring my hosting back up once the vulnerability has been identified and fixed."

104 comments

  1. No backups?! by fbobraga · · Score: 4, Informative

    all data is lost and per design, there are no backups Wow

    1. Re:No backups?! by Tuidjy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By design.

      I find it quite surprising, as well. It's easier to secure backups than it is to secure an Internet facing server... as the host learned, incidentally.

      I can't trust someone to make backups and store them safely, I probably would not I trust him host my server.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    2. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nigga, is you taking backups on a criminal fucking conspiracy?

    3. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty sure that they are trying to prevent a government from getting a court order to access their backup tapes, which would allow them access to all historical communications, etc... Much more information than they would keep on a running server.

      That said, they should plan on running the old hardware through a chipper-shredder and re-building on a completely different hardware and OS than they were running on before.

    4. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's dark web you nutsack, they deliberately do not make backups.
      "Wow"

    5. Re:No backups?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it quite surprising, as well

      You should not be surprised. This is the dark web. If backups are made, they can be subpoenaed.

      I can't trust someone to make backups and store them safely, I probably would not I trust him host my server.

      You are missing the point. His customers are looking for someone they can trust to NOT make backups.

      Anyway, good luck to Daniel and his customers. As long as we have overreaching governments grasping for power, we need the anonymity and secrecy of the dark web. Hopefully someday their activities can be done openly.

    6. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure that they are trying to prevent a government from getting a court order to access their backup tapes,

      Wouldn't you block encrypt the backups though, making them not usable for that purpose, but still useful as backups?

    7. Re:No backups?! by bob4u2c · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just contact the CIA, I'm sure they have a few backups.

    8. Re:No backups?! by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      One of the selling points is that he did not take backups, so the data never left the root account.

      However, what he should have done, assuming he was using AWS, was at least pop snapshots on a daily/weekly/monthly level, with a guarantee that they would be deleted, perhaps with code that deletes the snapshot of a client VM when the client deletes the snapshot, using crypto keys to ensure the data is not readable.

    9. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, trust encryption for 'years' after it was effective?

      Do you think that any of those backups, with 24-bit encryption from the '90s, would pose a real problem for any government to crack today?

      Probably not, they are obviously proceeding with an abundance of caution.

    10. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a dark net hosting site, the policy makes perfect sense.

    11. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Who would be dumb enough to back up the content of thousands of kiddy porn sites?

    12. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is to prevent a government or criminal agency requesting the backup password from Mr. Daniel with his body strapped to a restraining table in a non-descrip basement.

    13. Re:No backups?! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Troll

      As long as we have overreaching governments grasping for power

      Because the government has no business knowing if children are being sold for child porn, or women (mainly women) are being sold into forced prostitution, or if murders are being set up.

      Hopefully someday their activities can be done openly.

      I'm sure people would love to see children or women being raped in the open.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    14. Re: No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raped in the open? Like Iâ(TM)m the Arab Spring? Or Sweden?

    15. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or being gay. Or as a woman being in public without a hijab. Or smoking pot. Or all the illegal activities by all sorts of governments, sanctioned or not, in other countries that they don't want others to know about. Perhaps if the governments weren't going around doing horrible things to people your argument would hold up. As it stands, there has to be some force to try to counterbalance the excesses and abuses of government.

    16. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the government has no business knowing if children are being sold for child porn, or women (mainly women) are being sold into forced prostitution, or if murders are being set up.

      Considering governments are guilty of doing all of those things and more, I don't see the point of them knowing. They won't stop themselves or others from doing those things, which is about the only business one would expect the government to perform, so what difference does it make?

      If the government that has been caught with indisputable evidence of selling people into slavery, murder, breaking the very laws they set for themselves, and peddling in and production of child porn - what do you honestly expect them to do about other people doing those things?
      If they won't stop it, exactly what is the point?

      But now that your strawman has been taken down, what about all the other non-crimes that governments kidnap, rape, torture, and murder innocent people over?

      What about *rescuing* victims of slavery, forced prostitution, and the children being exploited that if done in the open invites a death sentence?

      I'm sure people would love to see children or women being raped in the open.

      As my last statement shows, you clearly are against saving people from kidnap, rape, slavery, and murder. Why do you want those people to endure such awfulness? Why don't you want to help them, and condemn their rescuers to death?

    17. Re:No backups?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because the government has no business knowing if children are being sold for child porn

      Pedophilia is a medical condition as well as a crime. By over-criminalizing it, we push it into the shadows, make it harder to treat and increase the number of victims. In Japan, pedophiles can buy childlike sex dolls. There is strong evidence that these dolls provide a satisfactory outlet for many pedophiles, and reduces their desire to prey on real children. These dolls are illegal in America, and can only be ordered on the dark web. Do you think that makes sense?

      ... or if murders are being set up.

      Most of the murders arranged on the dark web are between drug gangs. This is a direct result of their activities being illegal, and thus very profitable but with no access to legal processes of dispute resolution.

      Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s also led to plenty of murders. The solution was fewer restrictions on what citizens could do, not more.

      I'm sure people would love to see children or women being raped in the open.

      Because that is what always happens when governments reduce censorship?

      Reductio ad absurdum

    18. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh the good ole "think of the children" straw man, but i do give you points for tossing in that sprinkling of feminist rage!

      Look, for every Bad Thing (TM) that you think the governments need to stop there are lots of other reasons not to give governments that level of power. For every bit of safety you want you must give up your freedom, just like for every bit of convenience you want you must give up security. The thing is that any agency that is supposed to stop the Bad Things (TM) can do so with out subpoenaing the backup data so nothing is really lost by not having backups. If you are talking about not having the anonymity and secrecy of the dark web, well history has proven time and time again that being anonymous is one of the checks and balances against the accumulation of too much power. The citizens who fought against Mao and Stalin would agree, so while there may be some Bad Thing (TM) happening there is always benevolent uses for any technology.

      This is part of the cat an mouse game of people consolidating power and other people fighting against it, the world is never as cut and dry as you think it may be. So while you may say think of the children, i can turn around and say think of the billions of people who could die with all information being tracked and the wrong person in power.

      It is always amazing how easily the lessons of history are lost on people who blindly follow dog whistles with out conscious thought.

    19. Re:No backups?! by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Dark Web hosting is by definition of the kind you don't want any backups of. This is about securing backups against a government entity with court backup. Not against "random hackers".

      And it's much harder to secure backups against such entity, requiring a completely different approach. You're thinking securing against hackers. That's a completely different game compared to one they're playing.

    20. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's looking very much like pedophilia is not something that can be treated. There is only one sure way to make sure it doesn't reoccur ... ok 2 ways ... if separation from society is not enough.

    21. Re:No backups?! by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      no backups Wow

      Just one phrase: Bookie Flash Paper.

      "The days of guys writing bets on flash paper so they could burn everything when the cops busted in are long gone," But I guess that was before most of y'alls time.

      Believe it or not, there's are times where you WANT to lose your data.

      Oh, and speaking of old phrases, does anyone remember: "If anyone says they're from the government and here to help you, run"? Now-days it seems more like a demand rather than a joke.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    22. Re:No backups?! by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I can't comment on child porn or organised hits, but I actually do know something about the sex industry in Australia in particular, which should be relevant given you're a wombat. Ironically, the sex slavery for the most parts is happening in licensed brothels. The unlicensed brothels or "massage parlours" are mostly students trying to save some money in the face of the ludicrous cost of living, or women funding an extended holiday. They don't want to attract any unnecessary attention. However there are plenty of cases of licensed brothels keeping women locked up, forcing them to work over sixteen hours at a time, bringing them in under false pretenses and then telling them they have to pay off a debt, etc. And the dark web? It's less than a rounding error. If you want to actually improve conditions for sex workers, get something done about the licensed brothels. But it's probably tied up with corruption in the ranks of the people responsible for enforcement, so good luck.

    23. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably exactly the reason, if there also was/is some kind of deadman's switch to just wipe the server in the event it came into the "wrong hands"

    24. Re:No backups?! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Licensed brothels in Europe and Latin America require ID cards, have regular health inspections, and the working women are interviewed periodically by both health professionals and law enforcement without a manager present. I have a hard time seeing how the abuses you describe could happen there. Why is Australia's system so dysfunctional?

    25. Re:No backups?! by _merlin · · Score: 2

      Same's true in Australia in theory, but enforcement is lax. There are various ways to side-step inspections or make them ineffective anyway. If you've got contacts in the police force, you can get advance notice of when an inspection is going to happen and temporarily move your sex workers who are on the wrong kind of visa off the premises. The ones who actually have permission to work in Australia but aren't being paid properly or are being forced to work excessive hours can be coerced into giving convenient answers if interviewed using various carrot/stick approaches.

      Enforcement is pretty lax in Europe as well. It's an open secret that organised criminal groups move women from Eastern Europe and Russia through the German FKK clubs and the Amsterdam glass houses. Probably a lot of corruption and lack of will to take enforcement seriously.

    26. Re:No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. Kill all the kids so they can't be harmed by any of those creepy fuckers. It's the only way to keep them safe as there's no way to determine ahead of time when someone will become a pedophilia.

    27. Re: No backups?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont use AWS to host dark web servers, some of which are doing illegal things, Einstein.

  2. No dark web in FEDERAL PRISON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sorry TRUMP TRAITORS, you're going to get your dumper databased instead!

  3. It Wuz Haxx0rz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, msmash and the eternally failing quest for k-radness. Welp, more drivel I don't need to read. NEXT.

  4. Now we know ... by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... where Bobby Tables went to work after graduating.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Now we know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A pox on you for not linking to the relevant XKCD!

    2. Re:Now we know ... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      You still need a link? Turn in your geek card!

  5. Such Hosting! Very Hosted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a moran would pay this tool anything.

    1. Re:Such Hosting! Very Hosted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Mr Moran, you called?

    2. Re:Such Hosting! Very Hosted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Mr Tool, he thinks you should pay me.

  6. Not just deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but copied by the thieves first... DUH!

    Dark Web.... That's some funny shit right there. Stupid, dumbass, motherfuckers!

  7. Dumb move. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    If they had merely created a backdoor account and given the FBI access, I'm certain that the server would have been seized and a shitload of arrests would have happened. There is no way he was hosting 6500 darkweb sites without lots of them being highly illegal.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Dumb move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Empirical proof > Circumstantial evidence > Implicating factors > Psychic intuition > steaming pile of dogshit > Your as-yet unfounded opine

    2. Re:Dumb move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your hat! Where did you buy it?

    3. Re:Dumb move. by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      There is no way he was hosting 6500 darkweb sites without lots of them being highly illegal.

      And? That must be what people call a "non-sequitur". Who the hell cares about that? The "law" being so fluid these days, depending on the players, there's hardly any point in bringing it up.

      Since they don't do backups, it would seem logical that their customers keep their own to re-upload.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Dumb move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was done in the first episode of Mr. Robot

    5. Re:Dumb move. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Since they don't do backups, it would seem logical that their customers keep their own to re-upload.

      I think his problem is that now he doesn't know who his customers are......or how much they owe.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Dumb move. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Customers don't have receipts either, eh?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Dumb move. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They might or might not, but if I were a customer with a bill about to come due, I sure wouldn't volunteer that information.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Got access to the database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good chance that whoever deleted the accounts from the database also downloaded a list of account information. It makes you wonder whodunit.

  9. Dark web host by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Big Red Button next to the front door. 'In the event of a search warrant, press"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Dark web host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of a large powerful magnet embedded in the door frame that is triggered by rfid stuck in each hd case.

      Something like this might be too obvious, but it may provide some humour to an otherwise shitty day

    2. Re:Dark web host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destruction of evidence is a crime with potentially worse consequences than whatever crime they're trying to hide.

    3. Re:Dark web host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was the police who destroyed it.

    4. Re:Dark web host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where we kept all the dirt on Hillary.

  10. Don't fucking bother, mate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who in their right mind would use you as their host now?

    1. Re:Don't fucking bother, mate. by zlives · · Score: 1

      probably the same people that use Experian, ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Blueshield....

    2. Re:Don't fucking bother, mate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would! They did what they were supposed to do, delete everything before the cops break in. The 'hack' is the cover story to block obstruction charges

  11. Is this related to the cryptocurrency crash? by xack · · Score: 1

    Considering how linked the two are, I expect people are cashing out their ill gotten coins as fast as possible.

  12. The dark web by fredrated · · Score: 4, Funny

    went dark. Oh the irony.

  13. "Dark Web" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dark Web" does not necessarily mean "illegal" or "illicit".

    1. Re:"Dark Web" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh c'mon we all know that if there was nothing to hide, these sites would all be on the plain 'ol clear public web!

    2. Re:"Dark Web" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably an activist gray hat who saw a glimpse of the things being sold there, things that killed the mommy. *tears IP*

    3. Re:"Dark Web" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means 'sites hosted by some dude named Daniel who freely gives out his name to tech journalists so he can seem cool for being Mr. Dark Web'. Daniel's not your guy if you do want to run something illegal.

    4. Re: "Dark Web" by edris90 · · Score: 1

      You have it backwards. The darknet is the public web. No rules, handle yourself or not the risks are yours to take. Nobody's in charge. The real internet. The little walked garden searchable by search engines are but a small subset of the internet and the smallest part. And it's been run the shit by e-commerce censorship and political agendas. The censorded cross indexed commercialized internet you use Is the weird little mutant, the dark web is everything more the internet was and still is.

  14. NEVER secure now lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'll never be secure. The people who wiped the database no doubt kept a copy. All his customers are known. All their contacts known, probed now. If they try to re-establish hosting with him, they'll slip back in with that. No problem.

    1. Re:NEVER secure now lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just deleted a lengthy reply, decided that it was simpler to say that you have a lot to learn, but the fact that you have no clue just makes me more valuable.

      Since you are at a remedial level, I would suggest that you read "Between Silk and Cyanide" which circles around the events involved in the destruction and re-implementation of secure communications to field agents in Vichy France during ww2. It makes much better reading that Bob and Alice and provided more fundamental information than other fiction like Cryptonomicon

  15. Hacker Unkown by AlexanKulbashian · · Score: 2

    Let me guess, hacker router his connection through the dark web? :D

  16. Thanks in a way & why, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your IMPERSONATIONS of me (like u do now) saying what you thought "makes me look bad" e.g. https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (like now)? You did me a favor & got me to look @ these closely:

    1st - Hosts stop portsmash (blocking downloads of it) "You basically have to already be able to run your own evil code on a machine in order to PortSmash it." from https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

    2nd hosts MAY prevent the OTHER forms of Intel CPU weakness per ACADEMIC RESEARCH I read:

    SPECTRE "As an attempted mitigation for our JavaScript-based attack" https://spectreattack.com/spec...

    MELTDOWN "We presented Meltdown, a novel software-based attack" https://meltdownattack.com/mel...

    So like portsmash?

    Academics NEEDED LOCAL CODE (like portsmash hosts can prevent) so hosts ALSO work vs. Spectre/Meltdown!

    APK

    P.S.=> 3rd strike "yer out" - U FAIL PORTFILTERING TESTS https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... (IF hosts could DO it I'd implement it in my work & I STOP THAT ERROR) ... apk

  17. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thinking of buying some wax from Dream Market. Any experiences with the place?

  18. IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gweihir KNOWS you IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... c6gunner proves it https://linux.slashdot.org/com... forgetting to SUBMIT BY AC & f'd up using his registered 'lusrname' instead (just because he tried to mock me both BEFORE & after I FAIRLY challenged him to show he's done better work - he had ZERO).

    & NO WAY I'd "cry" like you to any "ne'er-do-well" on /. OR post on hosts offtopic.

    YOU EVEN HELPED ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... (& you quit trying to make me look bad trying to "tell lies" on hosts as "ME" IN YOUR IMPERSONATIONS of me e.g. https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & regarding Intel speculative execution attack? Hosts DO PREVENT THEM)

    APK

    P.S.=> LMAO - I KNOW that 3rd/2nd to last link above's KILLING YOU that YOU ACTUALLY HELPED ME getting me to see if hosts stop more than portsmash (& Meltdown + Spectre too) & "lo & behold" - hosts WORK on 'em - U LOSE (& U STOPPED TRYING IT in your impersonations of me) .... apk

  19. popular by spikeysnack · · Score: 0

    Perhaps not so popular after all.

  20. Has nobody yet thought about one-way backups? by burni2 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps one-way is the wrong term, perhaps "Postbox"-Backups are a better term?

    I mean, we have the tools to create a public & private key used for asymetric encryption.

    With my public-key I can encrypt data and without the private key this data can't be decrypted?

    How to use these keys in backup and restoration?
    So when I would generate such a key-pair and put the public key into the backup service of this hosting provider, the data could be backed up and gets encrypted with the public-key. But nobody except the owner of the private key could decrypt it.

    The owner of the private key should not be the hosting provider :)

    postbox
    It is like a postbox, you can put letters in, however only the mailman can open the box with his key and get the letters out. (disclaimer: metaphorically speaking, not including access by lock picking, explosives, extortion, and so on ..)

    Another application
    Naturally it would also be possible to equip an email service with this technique, the server receives an email and without storing it anywhere outside RAM, it will be encrypted with your "public" key first and then stored inside your mailbox. You receive it and decrypt it locally.

    This way a person getting access to the eMail-Account without the private key will only get encrypted data.

    Or am I getting something wrong?

    I know if we would live in a perfect world we all would do key-exchanges and signing and ofc singing and dancing. But this world is far from perfect.

    1. Re:Has nobody yet thought about one-way backups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does nothing to protect against a supeona. Or this: https://xkcd.com/538/

    2. Re:Has nobody yet thought about one-way backups? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      It protects the hoster against a subpeona, because he will surrender all data, but at least the backup is still encrypted.

      To decrypt it you would need to get to the person, who has the private key, in his/her possession and use violence or just force him to surrender the private key.

      And a darkweb hoster tries not to know who the customer is :)

  21. Web servers at home? by DogDude · · Score: 2

    Why do so few people set up web servers at home? It ain't rocket science. It can be done on *any* computer. Really. Unless you're hosting something really huge or something that gets a huge amount of traffic, just fire up any old PC, install a web server, and you're done. Do your own backups (drag and drop folders, if you're too clueless to schedule something). People used to do it all of the time, back when setting up things like web and FTP servers were more complicated than it is now. It's100% free, and if you're doing something sketchy, you've got 100% control of your own files and your own backups.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re: Web servers at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem comes in with ISP terms of service saying you can't do that. Plus ISP DHCP can change anytime technically speaking. Then you need to pay for a service that tracks your IP address or setup a system to send out the new IP if/when it changes.

    2. Re:Web servers at home? by Woldscum · · Score: 2

      Most ISPs require a business class contract to have a server. Here that is a min of $350/mo for 50/5.

    3. Re:Web servers at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do so few people set up web servers at home?

      Ummm, yeah, about that ... so you plan on setting up a darkweb server which is, you know, kinda secret and meant to be anonymous ... and you're going do this on your domestic ISP service out of your mom's fucking basement?

      Dude, m07heRfuck1ng l337 haxor, you aint.

      It's100% free, and if you're doing something sketchy, you've got 100% control of your own files and your own backups.

      And 0% control over the fact that you are stupid enough to be doing this from your home address under an account in your name.

      Holy fuck, Dr. Evil just showed up, and he's going to school us from his fucking home address broadband service.

      Jesus, they'll never fucking see that comin'.

      God, what are you, 12? You wouldn't last a week.

    4. Re:Web servers at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) no static IP address unless you pay for it, and those are normally limited to more expensive business class accounts.
      2) a lot of ISP's run carrier grade NAT, ie the internet cannot connect to the IP address you have.
      3) most people are to lazy to run web server competently. No security, no updates... Will be hacked in days.
      4) you don't run anything dark anywhere that can be tracked back to you.

    5. Re: Web servers at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your comment is I don't think you are trolling by saying such a dumbass statement....I think you actually believe it's a good option

    6. Re:Web servers at home? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's100% free, and if you're doing something sketchy, you've got 100% control of your own files and your own backups.

      People with technical knowledge who are doing sketchy things like to host their stuff on other people's home servers, often on their router (which has firmware that hasn't been updated in years).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Web servers at home? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most ISPs require a business class contract to have a server. Here that is a min of $350/mo for 50/5.

      Wow!. I agree with your first sentence. I had to switch to a business class contract to get a public facing IP address. I had the choice of paying 59EUR for a 250/10 consumer connection or ... 62EUR for a 250/40 connection with 2 IP addresses with each additional IP a few eur per month.

      You're being fleeced. But then you knew that already.

    8. Re: Web servers at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the isp blocks all of the useful ports at the firewall or nat's you to prevent you from doing that.
      Spend $5/mo for a hosted VM.

    9. Re:Web servers at home? by Bazar · · Score: 1

      As someone who's done home email servers, webhosting, phones, the lot
      The age of running web services from your home connection has passed.

      If you try to run emails out of a home connection, either your ISP will block by default port 25 used for sending emails, or your ip address will be blacklisted by any and every spam filter system out there.
      Even if you're ISP is good and unblocks you, you'll still likely hit some spam filters.

      As for security, do you really want to go to the hassle of applying security updates and being aware of security vulnerabilities and mitigating them?
      And when you get hit by a zero-day exploit, do you want to run the risk of your machine being used to infect other machines on your network. Do you want to invest in the technology and have the skill set to ensure that the system is segregated or firewalled off from the rest of the network?

      And finally, understand that if you have such a machine on your premise, you can easily be tracked by a simple subpoena to your ISP. At which point any civil, let alone criminal investigation will effortlessly tie all actions/crimes your website is responsible for to you, the tech-head running it in your home.

      Just get someone else to host your crap, its not worth the trouble to do it yourself..

      --
      To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
  22. No Backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for him for operating a darkweb 'service' like it should be.

  23. Well who would still use Cisco Powny Phones? by burni2 · · Score: 1

    And switches and firewalls and VOIP-Gateways and .. and .. and ..

    Yeah I know the hoster still looses because he hosts true to himself like a real darkweb hoster.

  24. Groping genitals, forced sex? by burni2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm sure people would love to vote for a candidate, boasting about groping womens genitals and doing such a bad job as being recorded with that statement?

    And actually they did, what will this now tell about if these people would live to see children or women being raped in the open?

  25. Thanks & the WHY of my hosts engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just a guy who can help what is a HUGE problem out there - malware in general. That's all. My hosts engine's for that, for free. Less people can "spread the contagion" etc. too!

    NOW, if the "powers that be" REALLY wanted to help that?

    They'd STALL GoDaddy type hosting providers doing $1 unlimited domains!

    WHY? Security pros KNOW the same thing I do on that note & say it:

    "95% of all newly registered domains are associated with malware or spam. And they are very short-lived. For those who register hundreds of these domains, however, this is not a problem. For example, if a spam domain remains online for longer than 15 minutes, the players have already made a profit during this time. After that, a domain is usually either blocked, deleted or blacklisted" https://www.gdatasoftware.com/...

    Those hosting providers ARE the BIGGEST part of the "CANCER".

    I also STRONGLY suspect many "techies" wouldn't LIKE that as a GOOD 90% of many of their days ARE removing malware (& the more skilled of them imo? CREATE the malware to perpetuate all that + their income (greed & "$" IS the root of all evil imo))

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly on trolls: They're PAPER TIGERS (@ best) vs. me, a Cyberian Tiger https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... ... apk

    1. Re:Thanks & the WHY of my hosts engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely ruin an otherwise decent experience on this site. Even the political and Nazi spam is less irritating than you. No one wants it. No one. Please for the love of all that is good either stop or go away.

  26. Make it the doorbell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course we know the Feds kick first instead of ringing, so make sure you have a doorswitch as a wipe first backup :)

  27. /Ama DW hosting user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey slashdotters.

    I was using DW's hosting service.
    I didn't surprise he didn't took any backups because that's what I wanted to hear.
    I have a backup myself, you know.

    I know how to setup dot Onion server on my computer by myself.
    I've used his service only for clearnet access, so anyone can visit my website via clearnet.

    There are no alternative hosting service which meet my requirements:
    1. Don't take my backups unless I told you to do so,
    2. Don't require my identity, such as credit card, unless necessary,
    3. The server MUST NOT block Tor access,
    4. The server SHOULD NOT use Tor blockers, such as Cloudflare,
    5. The server support Tor access.

    DW hosting was perfect.

    You are welcome to visit my website - completely legal.
    The "darknet" is just a part of Onion universe. Not everything on .onion is bad.

    Anonymous

    1. Re:/Ama DW hosting user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Freedom Hosting Reloaded? I think it is even better.
      http://fhostingineiwjg6cppciac2bemu42nwsupvvisihnczinok362qfrqd.onion/

  28. Re:Thanks in a way & why, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow you really just can't stop yourself can you.
    What none of us can understand is why you don't just fuck off and never look at this website again. Then all of our problems would be solved. Surely you would be happier on reddit?

  29. Because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why do so few people set up web servers at home?

    Last I checked there were 7 billion people in the world and roughly half that many IPv4 addresses. This means each IPv4 address will, on average,* correspond to more than one home subscriber. Thus ISPs in many countries put each neighborhood behind a carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) device, which allows a hundred or so to make outgoing connections on the same IP address. But a device behind CGNAT cannot receive incoming connections because the CGNAT does not know to whom to forward the connection. For example, if someone connects to port 443 of a public IP address that you share with 200 other subscribers, how does the CGNAT know that the connection is for your server, not a server run by someone who lives a block away? Even if you have your own /56 worth of routable IPv6 addresses, that doesn't help when an IPv4-only client attempts to connect to your server.

    * Some countries have more IPv4 addresses per 1000 people than the average. But this means other countries have even fewer.

    1. Re:Because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I had this problem, so I pay my ISP 3eur / month more to get a business connection. I also get an additional 30mbit upload bandwidth for that.

    2. Re:Because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses by tepples · · Score: 1

      The United States and whatever EU member state you live in have a larger-than-average allocation of IPv4 addresses per thousand people. In some places, an IPv4 address costs a lot more than 3 euros per month. It's much more expensive to get your own IP in somewhere like Myanmar, as Bert64 reported: First you have to buy a business license, as none of the ISPs in a given city will sell a business connection to an individual. Then your business is placed behind CGNAT unless you lease individual IPv4 addresses at extra cost. It ends up cheaper to lease a VPS for use as a VPN endpoint.

    3. Re:Because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Being a registered business is also a hurdle that is different in different countries.

      I have a registered business in Australia. It cost me the time it took to fill out a form, and that gave me an assigned name an business number from the tax department. Just like in Australia you need to be a registered business to get a domain name, it's a hurdle that has stopped no one.

      Funny side anecdote: every other person is their own registered business due to the tax benefits you can get from it. A classic case was to get financial assistance during university you need to prove you had a job before you got to university. One classic way of doing that was for the parents to be a registered business and actually report their kid's allowances to the tax department as "wages". I'm amazed that this was tolerated :-)

      But yes, fundamentally the problem is we're out of IPv4 addresses, we broke the internet, and no one gives a crap.

  30. Backups? are you kidding me by UnixUnix · · Score: 1

    Just Dark Web? Imagine subpoenas for backups of 4chan's /b/ *the horror

  31. aha! by sad_ · · Score: 1

    now i know what to tell my boss the next time there are no backups.
    it's by design!

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  32. Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this is the planned downtime while they're finishing the server migrations...