Talk:Astalavista.box.sk

The website formerly known as astalavista.box.sk was a site used primarily by hackers and software crackers. _ Those who wanted to unlock full versions or trial versions without paying. In its heyday, this site was safe to go to and download about any full version program for free. Or if one already had the unlicensed version installed, one could grab a crack, -serial number or key generator to unlock it. Once spyware and other trojans and viruses started to saturate the web, astalavista.box.sk became an attack site. Those who were formerly just cracking and sharing key codes and serial numbers began to turn their hacking talent against those looking to save a few bucks, or outright gain access to unlicensed and/or cracked software. It's like this; as times changed, the malicious nature of people rose to the surface, thus, this site was no longer the "free lunch" it once was. Using its alternative to seek out cracks and hacks will lead the seeker into becoming a victim of hacking, just as all of those software companies products were hacked. It comes to this: Live by the hack/crack - Die by the hack/crack. I got hit once after having not visited the site for a few years. I went to find a serial number I wanted and got immediately hit with a trojan no sooner than the page loaded. I won't use it again and suggest just paying for your software, or at minimum, finding another site, this one bites first and these are professionals. CAUTION!

Astalavista.box.sk is definetly big, old and famous enoung to get it's own wikipedia page and link to it should be here. Anyhow danger to get some browser exploit, trojan or something like that from it is pretty clear, so i added warning text. Though style of warning is pretty crude. --Zache 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy stating that there should be a warning placed next to dubious links - it is up to the user to be vigilant. Such warnings constitute bias towards the links in question, namely when it is a link directly about the article in question. Sfacets 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be policy to have warnings when there is direct links to pages which are known to have browser exploits. I could understand the statement if user could go to the site and review it, but it is pretty much that if you open the link, then there is attack against your browser. So i think that some warning should be there. Even if we think that everybody should use anti-virus programs and update their browsers, but in reality it doesn't work like that and people who are using wikipedia can't be expected to be that vigilant enoung to analyse outgoing links.

And i really don't think that bias is problem if it is based on facts. The site is search engine for cracs, exploits, warez and so on and browser exploits against your browser are just something what you can expect when you are going there if you know what you are doing. So i think that some warning in article is just fair game.

Site advisors info about astalavista.box.dk : http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/astalavista.box.sk --Zache 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited the POV warning comments to non POV keeping the warning still intact.CrazyRob926 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Offline?

The domain seems to be dead. I sure hope it wasn't taken offline, I've been using it for a decade. --NeF 10:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The board is offline and now its www.astalavista.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.42.79 (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the website is down and the link forwards now to http://www.ariadninanit.com. --212.37.165.62 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Pun?

So according to the article Astalavista(founded 1994), not only is a pun on Hasta La Vista, but also of AltaVista(founded 1995)? I don't see how a website name can be a pun of another website that doesn't exist until a year later. Lmcgregoruk (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes this can happen when you seat in Usenet and read professional news earlier than something is rolled out for general public. Two years would make me wonder, one year - no, just a curiosity124.215.115.102 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC).