2 ms·
If you saw the state of hidden web, you would agree. There are very few hidden services and most of them are... questionable. The article cites child porn. Th
by runn1ng 8y ago
If you saw the state of hidden web, you would agree.
There are very few hidden services and most of them are... questionable.
The article cites child porn. That's about right.
- belorn 8y agoEither the HN link has changed or the article has been edited but the word porn is not found in the article.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pure-awesome 8y agoWeird, you're right. It definitely referenced it when I first read the article. I wonder what the motivation would be for removing that reference. EDIT: Note that I am not user "runn1ng"; I am corroborating what they referenced about the contents of the article EDIT2: They even mentioned three-or-so specific forums or websites, or something.
- dejaime 8y agoThey changed the link. It was pointing to another one that cited this one as the source and added -even more- speculation on top of it.
- dejaime 8y agoHere you go https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/11/21/hacker-erases-6500-sites-from-the-dark-web https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/11/21/hacker-erases-65... This adds speculation and sensationalism on top of an ill informed article. They even defined it as a 0-day vulnerability, when it is obviously not the case as explained by the article itself. Can't simply trust the quality of the information in there.