The attacker seems to be the admin of those two instances. Both instances have their registrations closed.

cross-posted from: https://hackertalks.com/post/8713785

The instances being used are

  • lemmy.doesnotexist.club
  • chinese.lol

Here is an example of the coordinated downvoting https://hackertalks.com/post/8692093

Of course its a controversial user who got someone angry enough to automated downvoting @DonaldJMusk@lemmy.today

But you can see every post they make gets 53ish downvotes from these two instances, plus some organic ones after a few hours.

Current downvoting Accounts

bot-list

LightIsland@chinese.lol MagnificentRow@chinese.lol FondKnowledge@chinese.lol SillyTowel95@chinese.lol HelplessDear@chinese.lol SomberBrain@chinese.lol InexperiencedCloset@chinese.lol NecessaryPerson11@chinese.lol ClosedEmployment@chinese.lol CoarseHair420@chinese.lol BurlyChampionship49@chinese.lol ZigzagNatural@chinese.lol QuestionableDirt@chinese.lol ProudDeparture@lemmy.doesnotexist.club JoyousDouble@chinese.lol UnitedPatience@chinese.lol MajesticArea@lemmy.doesnotexist.club SinfulConference@chinese.lol MoralDivide96@chinese.lol LeadingCarry65@chinese.lol FrillyOpinion38@lemmy.doesnotexist.club LimitedDiscount49@lemmy.doesnotexist.club ForkedScreen@chinese.lol MediumChemistry13@chinese.lol xXxLawfulGrassxXx@lemmy.doesnotexist.club VisibleSentence@chinese.lol AcidicLawyer90@lemmy.doesnotexist.club PriceySink14@lemmy.doesnotexist.club ExcellentBeach@chinese.lol VivaciousNews@lemmy.doesnotexist.club LankyIndependent32@lemmy.doesnotexist.club SpeedyFault@chinese.lol ConcreteHall89@lemmy.doesnotexist.club WorthyPoint12@lemmy.doesnotexist.club SurprisedAdult99@chinese.lol FlashyCrack@lemmy.doesnotexist.club MasculineBeing@chinese.lol RichWeird@lemmy.doesnotexist.club DryCash97@lemmy.doesnotexist.club AuthorizedChair@chinese.lol SlimKiss@lemmy.doesnotexist.club AromaticRoof78@lemmy.doesnotexist.club BewitchedInterview@lemmy.doesnotexist.club ImaginaryDraw@lemmy.doesnotexist.club PertinentGround@chinese.lol SinfulAssumption@lemmy.doesnotexist.club AwkwardAnybody30@lemmy.doesnotexist.club UnwillingRestaurant@lemmy.doesnotexist.club InsubstantialOven@lemmy.doesnotexist.club

A individual user airing their personal biases and manipulating lemmy isn’t good for the community, regardless of how you feel about their target. This is a really bad thing ™

  • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Seems relatively painless to chop those two instances off - chinese.lol has less than 200 users, and I can’t even find instance info for doesnotexist.club (coincidence? i think NOT).

    I do personally wonder how difficult it is to spin up new instances though. How much effort would it be for them to create a new one and do it again?

    I’m actually most concerned with the IP leaking of the fediverse chick posts - hopefully some progress has been made with the IP leaking in auto-loaded external media through DM’s

    • qaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      I checked the images and so far every image I’ve encountered linked to the users’s lemmy instance’s pictrs instance, none were hosted through a custom trackable image host.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’m actually most concerned with the IP leaking

      I’m curious, what is it about IP leaking that concerns you? I’ve been thinking about it lately but I have a hard time seeing why it’s a problem.

      • Nailbar@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        For one, you now know there is someone on the other end, so you can target your attacks instead of trying random ips.

    • SysAdmin@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      How much effort would it be for them to create a new one and do it again?

      Minimal, but it is the domain that gets blocked so the attacker would still need to purchase a new domain.