Short answer: no. Quite the opposite, actually — Archive.is is intentionally blocking 1.1.1.1 users. Here's why.

tl;dr: No. Quite the opposite, actually — Archive.is’s owner is intentionally blocking 1.1.1.1 users.

CloudFlare’s CEO had this to say on HackerNews:

We don’t block archive.is or any other domain via 1.1.1.1. […] Archive.is’s authoritative DNS servers return bad results to 1.1.1.1 when we query them. I’ve proposed we just fix it on our end but our team, quite rightly, said that too would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service. […] The archive.is owner has explained that he returns bad results to us because we don’t pass along the EDNS subnet information. This information leaks information about a requester’s IP and, in turn, sacrifices the privacy of users.

I am mainly making this post so that admins/moderators at BeeHaw will consider using archive.org or ghostarchive.org links instead of archive.today links.

Because anyone using CloudFlare’s DNS for privacy is being denied access to archive.today links.

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PmSkp

  • Pleonasm@programming.dev
    21·
    1 year ago

    JavaScript paywalls are not real paywalls. So no, Firefox can’t bypass real paywalls.

    Unlucky for your company to have a CISO with such poor reading comprehension.

    • Saik0AEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      JavaScript paywalls are not real paywalls. So no, Firefox can’t bypass real paywalls.

      Alright… Find me a page where archive.is can bypass the paywall… that Firefox cannot.

      Unlucky for your company to have a CISO with such poor reading comprehension.

      I’m going to refer you to my previous statement

      You just said “real paywalls”, assuming that someone would understand what the hell you’re talking about… When you communicate poorly, don’t be mad when people don’t understand you.

      You didn’t mention “Only Javascript” until just now… And for some reason you believe that those are fake? You’ve got some weird definitions here.