unsubscribe
unsubscribe On Wed, 10 May 2006 05:56:56 -0400, Matt Edman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On May 10, 2006, at 4:36 AM, Landorin wrote: However, where do I send feedback to? Will it do sending it to this mailing list or should I send it directly to the author? We have some contact information here: http://trac.vidalia-project.net/wiki/Contact The only thing I noticed was when starting up the server it checked for port 443 on adress 0.0.0.0. although the config was set to a dynamic dns adress. When I manually typed in the config infos into Vidalia again for the server it checked for the correct IP and started up. And if you think you've found a bug or have enhancement ideas, we'd like to hear about those, too! http://trac.vidalia-project.net/wiki/ReportingBugs http://trac.vidalia-project.net/wiki/RequestingFeatures -- Scarab [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
ISP Policies
Hello,everyone First, thanks to everyone who contributes to this list, to the development of Tor, the TorCP, Vidalia, and if any of the authors of Privoxy are around, those fine folks. I've learned a lot just lurking. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with BellSouth (the FastAccess DSL service) and their policy towards running an intermediate (non-exit) node. Alternatively, where do ISPs usually have this information, (what search terms to enter at the site)? I mention this because I'd rather not get nasty letters about "abuse", but also want to contribute, and with the new Vidalia control panel, it seems a lot easier. I don't have money to contribute, but I can run a relay node...my little blow against the system. Also...anyone who doesn't have a Gmail address and wants one, knows someone who wants one, or knows some site thats passing them on...get in touch with me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Seems silly to have 100 of the things, and no takers. Again...thank you all for the education hard work (I know from my limited experience that coding is tedious). And thanks for believing in individuals. Christopher W.
Recommendation for ISP in Germany?
Hi all, I'd like to set up a Tor node on a server in Germany and I'm looking for people with experience in doing this. Can anybody recommend a german ISP who provides servers for running a Tor node? The Wiki page[0] does not contain that many information about ISPs. I'm especially interested in people's experience with virtual vs. dedicated servers. Regards Lutz [0] http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/GoodBadISPs -- Lutz Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.fastmail.fm/mail/?STKI=600622 http://sttmjoc0.fastmail.fm/
Re: Recommendation for ISP in Germany?
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:17:46PM +0200, Lutz Horn wrote: Hi all, I'd like to set up a Tor node on a server in Germany and I'm looking for people with experience in doing this. Can anybody recommend a german ISP For a total list of servers, have a look at German section on http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/exit.pl who provides servers for running a Tor node? The Wiki page[0] does not I used to run a node at Hetzner, which tended to cut me off when DDoSed (happened every few months). I haven't had any issues with http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/whois.pl?q=85.31.186.61 though YMMV. I see other people run nodes at server4free etc., it would be interesting to hear their experiences. contain that many information about ISPs. I'm especially interested in people's experience with virtual vs. dedicated servers. I haven't run a Tor server in a vserver yet. I guess I should, to see the load. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ISP Policies
Thanks. I'm also giving out gmail invites to whoever wants them. Their rules should be posted on the main page or about us page under one of these names:Terms Of Service (TOS)Abuse policy Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Subscriber Agreement On 5/11/06, Christopher W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello,everyone First, thanks to everyone who contributes to this list, to the development of Tor, the TorCP, Vidalia, and if any of the authors of Privoxy are around, those fine folks. I've learned a lot just lurking. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with BellSouth (the FastAccess DSL service) and their policy towards running an intermediate (non-exit) node. Alternatively, where do ISPs usually have this information, (what search terms to enter at the site)? I mention this because I'd rather not get nasty letters about abuse, but also want to contribute, and with the new Vidalia control panel, it seems a lot easier. I don't have money to contribute, but I can run a relay node...my little blow against the system. Also...anyone who doesn't have a Gmail address and wants one, knows someone who wants one, or knows some site thats passing them on...get in touch with me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Seems silly to have 100 of the things, and no takers. Again...thank you all for the education hard work (I know from my limited experience that coding is tedious). And thanks for believing in individuals. Christopher W.
Re: ISP Policies
On 11/05/2006 09:42, Christopher W. wrote: I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with BellSouth (the FastAccess DSL service) and their policy towards running an intermediate (non-exit) node. Perhaps you could check the Policy Considerations for Choosing an ISP (also the subject line of a past email here) and send your report on Bell South to Geoffrey Goodell. http://afs.eecs.harvard.edu/~goodell/policy.html Jan
Re: Recommendation for ISP in Germany?
Hi Lutz, Lutz Horn wrote on 11.05.2006 12:17: I'm especially interested in people's experience with virtual vs. dedicated servers. I run a Tor server (roundabout) on a virtual server at Strato. No problems occurred so far but i never exceeded the limit of available RAM (128 MB fix assigned up to 256 MB shared with others) because the Tor process never ran long enough to reach this limit. In a forum i read that if the limit of 256 MB is exceeded processes will be killed till the limit fall short of 128 MB. I don't know what happens if the limit is exceeded repeatedly. regards, Jörg
Improvement of memory allocation possible?
Hi, if it possible to add an option which allows to shrink memory buffers immediatly if they are not full? [1] I run an Tor server on a virtual server in which the amount of RAM is the bottleneck of this system. Since ~ 3 weeks i measure the resident memory allocation and the corresponding traffic of the Tor server and the thing i realize is that the allocation only shrinks if i shutdown (and restart) the Tor server. [2] I would rather treat the CPU than the RAM. Is there a way? regards, Jörg [1] http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#ServerMemory , part 2 [2] http://www.blackbase.de/images/roundabout_memory-traffic_2006_05.png
Mike Perry's FoxyProxy concerns with Tor
Hi, I wanted to reply to this thread but long ago deleted it: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00130.html To anyone concerned about the possibility of privacy leaks by using FoxyProxy with Tor, I'd like your feedback about this: Someone suggested an idea which might alleviate these (see http://s9.invisionfree.com/foxyproxy/index.php?showtopic=18) To summarize: what if each configured proxy had its own set of cookies? As you switch (manually of automatically) between proxies, the relevent cookie set is used. Each cookie set would be stored in its own silo, preventing the need for clearing of cookies and also preventing cross-over; that is, cookies written when proxy x was in use could not be read when proxy y is in use. -eric
Re: Mike Perry's FoxyProxy concerns with Tor
Nevermind. I forgot about URL parameters. --- Eric H. Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I wanted to reply to this thread but long ago deleted it: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00130.html To anyone concerned about the possibility of privacy leaks by using FoxyProxy with Tor, I'd like your feedback about this: Someone suggested an idea which might alleviate these (see http://s9.invisionfree.com/foxyproxy/index.php?showtopic=18) To summarize: what if each configured proxy had its own set of cookies? As you switch (manually of automatically) between proxies, the relevent cookie set is used. Each cookie set would be stored in its own silo, preventing the need for clearing of cookies and also preventing cross-over; that is, cookies written when proxy x was in use could not be read when proxy y is in use. -eric
Re: Improvement of memory allocation possible?
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 09:21:05PM +0200, Joerg Maschtaler wrote: Hi, if it possible to add an option which allows to shrink memory buffers immediatly if they are not full? [1] I don't think you would want that; the CPU usage would be *insanely* high. Every time you transmitted any information at all, you'd need to shrink the buffer, and then immediately re-grow the buffer the buffer when you had more data to transmit. Right now, Tor shrinks buffers ever 60 seconds, down to the next largest power of two above the largest amount of the buffer at any time in the last 60 seconds. A 60-second lag here probably does no harm memory-wise, but the power-of-two thing will, on average, make 25% of your buffer space unused. The only thing that would actually help trade cpu for RAM here won't be a more frequent shrinking; instead, we'd have to switch off the power-of-two buffers implementation. But if we're going to do *that*, we may as well move to an mbuf/skbuff-style implementation, and get improved RAM usage and improved CPU usage at the same time. (That approach will make our SSL frame-size uniformity code a little trickier, but I think we can handle that.) I run an Tor server on a virtual server in which the amount of RAM is the bottleneck of this system. Since ~ 3 weeks i measure the resident memory allocation and the corresponding traffic of the Tor server and the thing i realize is that the allocation only shrinks if i shutdown (and restart) the Tor server. [2] Hm. I should look at a breakdown of buffer size; I'll try to do that later tonight, once I've had my server running for a bit. It's probably important to know whether our real problem is wedged connections whose buffers get impossibly large, or buffers whose capacities are larger than they have to be. yrs, -- Nick Mathewson pgpQ2B1A5MRGn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Warning, Vidalia creates problems in PGP
I was using TorCP since a while and decided to try Vidalia. I am also using PGP (8.5, 8.5.1, and 9.xx) on a few boxes. I didn't see anything suspicious at once, Vidalia was running fine, and PGP as always too. But today, I saw that I couldn't anymore unmount any PGP virtual disks, and moreover, the mounted PGP virtual disks didn't show up in Windows explorer. Of course I didn't linked this problem to Vidalia! I checked my boxes against viruses, trojans, lokked all the running processes, etc. Nothing suspicious! I then uninstalled completely PGP, created a new virtual disk and made the test again: Same result! Then I remembered that I just installed Vidalia some hours ago... I killed it... And the PGP mounted disks became visible again, and they again could be unmounted! A few tests showed that when Vidalia is running, the PGP virtual disks cannot be unmounted, and don't show up in Explorer. Morality: Back to TorCP... !
Re: Improvement of memory allocation possible?
Does your allocator actually return memory to the OS? Many don't, and in my (admittedly brief) look through the source, I don't remember seeing a custom allocator. If it doesn't return memory to the OS, it'll just sit at its maximum allocated size for all eternity, despite not using much of this memory. (Although your buffer-shrinking would help reduce that maximum-allocated-size.) -Ben Nick Mathewson wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 09:21:05PM +0200, Joerg Maschtaler wrote: Hi, if it possible to add an option which allows to shrink memory buffers immediatly if they are not full? [1] I don't think you would want that; the CPU usage would be *insanely* high. Every time you transmitted any information at all, you'd need to shrink the buffer, and then immediately re-grow the buffer the buffer when you had more data to transmit. Right now, Tor shrinks buffers ever 60 seconds, down to the next largest power of two above the largest amount of the buffer at any time in the last 60 seconds. A 60-second lag here probably does no harm memory-wise, but the power-of-two thing will, on average, make 25% of your buffer space unused. The only thing that would actually help trade cpu for RAM here won't be a more frequent shrinking; instead, we'd have to switch off the power-of-two buffers implementation. But if we're going to do *that*, we may as well move to an mbuf/skbuff-style implementation, and get improved RAM usage and improved CPU usage at the same time. (That approach will make our SSL frame-size uniformity code a little trickier, but I think we can handle that.) I run an Tor server on a virtual server in which the amount of RAM is the bottleneck of this system. Since ~ 3 weeks i measure the resident memory allocation and the corresponding traffic of the Tor server and the thing i realize is that the allocation only shrinks if i shutdown (and restart) the Tor server. [2] Hm. I should look at a breakdown of buffer size; I'll try to do that later tonight, once I've had my server running for a bit. It's probably important to know whether our real problem is wedged connections whose buffers get impossibly large, or buffers whose capacities are larger than they have to be. yrs,
Re: Improvement of memory allocation possible?
The default system one should if large blocks are allocated and deallocated at once.On 5/11/06, Ben Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Does your allocator actually return memory to the OS? Many don't, and in my (admittedly brief) look through the source, I don't remember seeing acustom allocator.If it doesn't return memory to the OS, it'll just sit at its maximumallocated size for all eternity, despite not using much of this memory. (Although your buffer-shrinking would help reduce thatmaximum-allocated-size.)-BenNick Mathewson wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 09:21:05PM +0200, Joerg Maschtaler wrote: Hi, if it possible to add an option which allows to shrink memory buffers immediatly if they are not full? [1] I don't think you would want that; the CPU usage would be *insanely* high.Every time you transmitted any information at all, you'd need to shrink the buffer, and then immediately re-grow the buffer the buffer when you had more data to transmit. Right now, Tor shrinks buffers ever 60 seconds, down to the next largest power of two above the largest amount of the buffer at any time in the last 60 seconds.A 60-second lag here probably does no harm memory-wise, but the power-of-two thing will, on average, make 25% of your buffer space unused. The only thing that would actually help trade cpu for RAM here won't be a more frequent shrinking; instead, we'd have to switch off the power-of-two buffers implementation.But if we're going to do *that*, we may as well move to an mbuf/skbuff-style implementation, and get improved RAM usage and improved CPU usage at the same time.(That approach will make our SSL frame-size uniformity code a little trickier, but I think we can handle that.) I run an Tor server on a virtual server in which the amount of RAM is the bottleneck of this system. Since ~ 3 weeks i measure the resident memory allocation and the corresponding traffic of the Tor server and the thing i realize is that the allocation only shrinks if i shutdown (and restart) the Tor server. [2] Hm.I should look at a breakdown of buffer size; I'll try to do that later tonight, once I've had my server running for a bit.It's probably important to know whether our real problem is wedged connections whose buffers get impossibly large, or buffers whose capacities are larger than they have to be. yrs,-- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neitherLiberty nor Safety.-- Benjamin Franklin
(FWD) Re: Recommendation for ISP in Germany?
[Forwarding because Manuel is not subscribed at this address. -RD] - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:39:47 +0200 From: Manuel Munz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: or-talk@freehaven.net Subject: Re: Recommendation for ISP in Germany? -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, i'm running some servers in germany. my experiences with virtual servers were quite bad. at least with netclusive (a very cheap german provider) it is almost impossible to run a tor server. i think the main problem with vservers is, that the provider can (and probably will) limit your ressources. i had lots of problems with full memory, exceeded number of open files, number of tcp- and other sockets etc. Now i'm running tor inside a virtual machine on my own dedicated server, which is hosted by ngz-servers.de. they sometimes have very interesting offers (sonderangebote) for root servers. Support is not the best, but server works fine, and is quite cheap (20?/month). If you should happen to buy one server there, you could give them my customerid, and i will in return get half of your first monthly fee. Hope that helped Greetz Manuel Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:17:46PM +0200, Lutz Horn wrote: Hi all, I'd like to set up a Tor node on a server in Germany and I'm looking for people with experience in doing this. Can anybody recommend a german ISP For a total list of servers, have a look at German section on http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/exit.pl who provides servers for running a Tor node? The Wiki page[0] does not I used to run a node at Hetzner, which tended to cut me off when DDoSed (happened every few months). I haven't had any issues with http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/whois.pl?q=85.31.186.61 though YMMV. I see other people run nodes at server4free etc., it would be interesting to hear their experiences. contain that many information about ISPs. I'm especially interested in people's experience with virtual vs. dedicated servers. I haven't run a Tor server in a vserver yet. I guess I should, to see the load. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEYyKDs2jAVhTFVWMRAiv/AKDGVT6UVFFl3fDgkZ4arCPY9a4GTwCg1uh+ ZMSQNRLrthz3UMOtiu09bhM= =IafY -END PGP SIGNATURE- - End forwarded message -
(Newbie:) Why use privoxy?
Hi all, do I have to use privoxy when using Firefox as a browser? I've been reading somewhere that firefox can make DNS request via tor. Is this correct? Martin -- Martin Möller, Journalist tor-ml at martinmoeller.net pgpwgI9FvXcaS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (Newbie:) Why use privoxy?
Martin Möller wrote: Hi all, do I have to use privoxy when using Firefox as a browser? I've been reading somewhere that firefox can make DNS request via tor. Is this correct? Martin The problem with not using Privoxy is that browsers will try to resolve the IP addresses of web sites you are visiting before requesting the page through Tor. This means a request is being sent, unprotected, from your computer to whatever DNS server you use. This request will have in plain text the address of the web site whose host name you are trying to resolve. That defeats the purpose of Tor to a large extent. When you use Privoxy, your browser won't try to resolve host names. Those host names will just be sent unresolved through Tor over TCP, and the exit node will resolve the hostname. DNS requests aren't made directly through Tor because Tor only handles TCP traffic and DNS is UDP, but since the exit node is initiating the connection just as you would if you were unprotected with the destination, it can do the DNS lookup itself. I hope this helps. -Keith
Re[2]: (Newbie:) Why use privoxy?
Actually Keith, that is not the case with Firefox. Martin is correct. Firefox can do remote DNS resolution, which is done through the SOCKS proxy. This does NOT leak DNS requests, and they are passed through tor. Just surf to about:config and find remote dns, and make sure it is set to true. Then set up your machine to use a SOCKS proxy with localhost as the IP and whatever port you set in the torrc. Steve
