Re: [warn] Error binding network socket: Address already in use
Quoth Olaf Selke olaf.se...@blutmagie.de, on 2009-11-10 07:54:57 +0100: It sounds like you're running out of outgoing ports to use for connections. yes, but only about 27000 tcp connections have been open That's getting close to the limit. Usually only high-numbered ports are used for outgoing connections. Since you mention you are running Linux, you may wish to check /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range and possibly widen the range to see whether that helps. E.g., the default range on my system appears to be 32768--61000, which allows at most 28232 outgoing TCP connections that are not bound to specific ports, and fewer if some of the ports are stuck in wait states. /proc settings (as you are probably aware) are usually changed using echo and shell redirection, so you would use # echo 24576 65000 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range or a similar command. Olaf --- Drake Wilson *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: [warn] Error binding network socket: Address already in use
Drake Wilson wrote: Quoth Olaf Selke olaf.se...@blutmagie.de, on 2009-11-10 07:54:57 +0100: It sounds like you're running out of outgoing ports to use for connections. yes, but only about 27000 tcp connections have been open That's getting close to the limit. Usually only high-numbered ports are used for outgoing connections. Since you mention you are running Linux, you may wish to check /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range and possibly widen the range to see whether that helps. E.g., the default range on my system appears to be 32768--61000, which allows at most 28232 outgoing TCP connections that are not bound to specific ports, and fewer if some of the ports are stuck in wait states. /proc settings (as you are probably aware) are usually changed using echo and shell redirection, so you would use # echo 24576 65000 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range thx, it appears you are right: anonymizer2:~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range 32768 61000 anonymizer2:~# echo 24576 65000 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range anonymizer2:~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range 24576 65000 Olaf *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: [warn] Error binding network socket: Address already in use
Drake Wilson wrote: # echo 24576 65000 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range one question again: why don't set it to 1024 65535? Is there any good reason to exclude a certain port range besides the ports below 1024 from being chosen as local port? Olaf *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: [warn] Error binding network socket: Address already in use
Quoth Olaf Selke olaf.se...@blutmagie.de, on 2009-11-10 16:22:34 +0100: Drake Wilson wrote: # echo 24576 65000 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range one question again: why don't set it to 1024 65535? Is there any good reason to exclude a certain port range besides the ports below 1024 from being chosen as local port? That depends on your system. It's possible there is no reason not to do that on your system. The main reason would be if you have other processes that may need to run services on predefined ports in that range. E.g., if your machine is dedicated to Tor, then you may not experience any problems with a setting of 1024--65535 for dynamic port allocations. You can check with netstat or similar, then experiment as desired. The IANA theoretically registers up to port 49151, with 0--1023 being the Well Known ports and 1024--49151 being the Registered Ports; in practice this is probably too conservative. --- Drake Wilson *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Tor WIN in germany :)
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek juliusz.chroboc...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote: And here is the german press release: http://klangbuero.net/2009/10/29/freispruch-fur-tor/ Please publish an English translation, so it gets Googlified. Juliusz *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ Yes, I'd really like to see an English version if possible. Congratulations! -Brian -- Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption: Key Id: 0x3AA70848 Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Case c...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Jacob Todd wrote: [clip] I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off. Let's say this is successful ... it will simply lead to a parallel, mostly wireless network that is even more decentralized than the current Internet. How much does it cost these days to link 10mbps across 10 km ? In a few years, with n hardware flooding the market, how much will it cost to link 100mbps across 50 km ? [clip] Agreed. You would think a man at the head of an Internet Security firm would have a better understand of Internet vs. internet. His comment about the Internet being designed illustrates to me that he doesn't actually know much about the history of networking, and apparently doesn't even have a good understanding of how ad-hoc these things really are. Anyway, like I said, I totally agree with your point. If The Internet is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then other internets will just spring up to replace it. Maybe to this end we should all make an effort to establish de-centralized networks in our own worlds: connect a few neighbors together with CAT5, or hell, even RS232, and you've got a network. Connect one of these to the neighbors on the next block, and you've got an internet. How about Sneakernets? Onion routing by snail-mail and courier? Packet transmission by encrypted email? The Internet grew out of nothing, once, and that when network theory was only in its infancy. There's no reason we couldn't go it again. -Brian -- Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption: Key Id: 0x3AA70848 Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Tor WIN in germany :)
Today I fought with my lawyer for the acquittal of Tor:) Here is our press release: Jena, 29.10.2009 Today, the Local Court of Jena, Hall 1, held a criminal trial against the domain owner of wikileaks.de, Theodore Reppe. The criminal charges were computer fraud - Reppe was accused of posting false information on the Internet and thereby causing damages amounting to 38.55 euros. The only evidence: An IP address that led to Reppe's customer data. After the opening statement, defense attorney Norman Lenz read out comments and other statements from Reppe that the court and prosecutor had to see that Reppe was not the culprit. In fact, it turned out that the Tor server operated by Reppe had been misused by someone else. The question ensued between the court and defense as to whether Reppe was still guilty since he had allowed the transfer of the fraudulent data. The court offered the popular conservative view that projects such as Tor are more harmful than useful, stating claims such as, There's nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide! and This server could also allow anonymous distribution of child pornography! The defense countered: These sorts of statements could also justify the elimination of private mail and personal correspondence. In the end, the presumption of innocence was upheld: Reppe's Tor server only anonymizes and encrypts activity, it is not itself the source of illegal activities, and thus the court had to acquit him. Please send questions to t...@morphium.info and they will be promptly answered. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Brian Mearns bmea...@ieee.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek juliusz.chroboc...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote: And here is the german press release: http://klangbuero.net/2009/10/29/freispruch-fur-tor/ Please publish an English translation, so it gets Googlified. Juliusz *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ Yes, I'd really like to see an English version if possible. Congratulations! -Brian -- Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption: Key Id: 0x3AA70848 Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Tor WIN in germany :)
Thanks! On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carolyn Anhalt caro...@anhalt.org wrote: Today I fought with my lawyer for the acquittal of Tor:) Here is our press release: Jena, 29.10.2009 Today, the Local Court of Jena, Hall 1, held a criminal trial against the domain owner of wikileaks.de, Theodore Reppe. The criminal charges were computer fraud - Reppe was accused of posting false information on the Internet and thereby causing damages amounting to 38.55 euros. The only evidence: An IP address that led to Reppe's customer data. After the opening statement, defense attorney Norman Lenz read out comments and other statements from Reppe that the court and prosecutor had to see that Reppe was not the culprit. In fact, it turned out that the Tor server operated by Reppe had been misused by someone else. The question ensued between the court and defense as to whether Reppe was still guilty since he had allowed the transfer of the fraudulent data. The court offered the popular conservative view that projects such as Tor are more harmful than useful, stating claims such as, There's nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide! and This server could also allow anonymous distribution of child pornography! The defense countered: These sorts of statements could also justify the elimination of private mail and personal correspondence. In the end, the presumption of innocence was upheld: Reppe's Tor server only anonymizes and encrypts activity, it is not itself the source of illegal activities, and thus the court had to acquit him. Please send questions to t...@morphium.info and they will be promptly answered. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Brian Mearns bmea...@ieee.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek juliusz.chroboc...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote: And here is the german press release: http://klangbuero.net/2009/10/29/freispruch-fur-tor/ Please publish an English translation, so it gets Googlified. Juliusz *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ Yes, I'd really like to see an English version if possible. Congratulations! -Brian -- Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption: Key Id: 0x3AA70848 Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ -- Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption: Key Id: 0x3AA70848 Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:29:26PM -0500, Brian Mearns wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Case c...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Jacob Todd wrote: [clip] I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off. Let's say this is successful ... it will simply lead to a parallel, mostly wireless network that is even more decentralized than the current Internet. How much does it cost these days to link 10mbps across 10 km ? In a few years, with n hardware flooding the market, how much will it cost to link 100mbps across 50 km ? [clip] Agreed. You would think a man at the head of an Internet Security firm would have a better understand of Internet vs. internet. His comment about the Internet being designed illustrates to me that he doesn't actually know much about the history of networking, and apparently doesn't even have a good understanding of how ad-hoc these things really are. Anyway, like I said, I totally agree with your point. If The Internet is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then other internets will just spring up to replace it. Maybe to this end we should all make an effort to establish de-centralized networks in our own worlds: connect a few neighbors together with CAT5, or hell, even RS232, and you've got a network. Connect one of these to the neighbors on the next block, and you've got an internet. How about Sneakernets? Onion routing by snail-mail and courier? Packet transmission by encrypted email? The Internet grew out of nothing, once, and that when network theory was only in its infancy. There's no reason we couldn't go it again. -Brian I havent read Kaspersky's report but the general argument is supportable. The hardware on which the high speed internet runs is increasingly concentrated under fewer owners. How many internet access providers exist where you live and do they significantly differ in Terms of Service, i.e. friendly to privacy? Google alone now carries from 6 to 10% of all the traffic. viz. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/youtube-bandwidth/ The laws governing (or attempting to) what is allowed on the internet are also swinging in favour of more control and traceability. Indeed, if the ACTA currently being negotiated is implemented, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-strikes-and- Tor could well become illegal, (a) because it can be used to circumvent restriction of copyrighted content by country and (b) because you can use it to hide identity while filesharing (even though we discourage that). EFF and friends succeeded in repealing some PATRIOT act insanity, but national insecurity and corporate greed continue to infect all areas of law and social reality including the internet. Anyway, there is a volunteer project which may help Tor work on the kind of grassroots internet you describe: https://www.torproject.org/volunteer.html.en Simulator for slow Internet connections *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
Bids like Kaspersky's are exceptionally unlikely to be successful. The people who keep the Internet running are, for the most part, the people who are most opposed to this kind of control. If The Internet is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then other internets will just spring up to replace it. For those who don't know, such a project already exists, run by Freaknet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku Sharif Olorin -- PGP/GPG key ID: 5738DC39 *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Sharif Olorin wrote: Bids like Kaspersky's are exceptionally unlikely to be successful. The people who keep the Internet running are, for the most part, the people who are most opposed to this kind of control. If The Internet is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then other internets will just spring up to replace it. For those who don't know, such a project already exists, run by Freaknet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku Netsukuku is very interesting. It's also very difficult to tell whether it is gibberish or not: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/6/101832/209 I want very much for it to be real. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
