Re: [tor-relays] bastet BW scanner barking mad

[teor]

Hi,

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 14:04, teor  wrote:
> 
> It's probably a bug in the scaling in the dev version of sbws

It is a kilobyte-to-byte scaling bug:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/29707

> No need to stress. Medians are designed to ignore outlying values like this.
> We'll get it fixed soon.


If you scroll down these graphs, you can see that bastet is below the
median for almost all relays:
https://consensus-health.torproject.org/graphs.html#bwauthgraphs

The change is too recent to be in the metrics graphs:
https://metrics.torproject.org/totalcw.html

T


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Relay C19B33758B3A5144894233EC4C95D7985B9FD101

[teor]

Hi,

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 13:08, Roger Dingledine  wrote:
> 
>> I also have some questions.
>> 
>> Atlas does not show any IPv6 address, is this normal?
> 
> I see that you have an ipv6 exit policy set, but I don't see any
> ipv6 address in your relay descriptor.
> 
> (You can see your relay descriptor with
> "wget 5.199.130.188/tor/server/authority" )
> 
> If you were advertising an ipv6 address, you would have an "or-address"
> line in your descriptor. Compare to Fission1's descriptor:
> "wget 158.69.30.132/tor/server/authority"

If you want to set an IPv6 address, use:

ORPort [IPv6]:Port

For example:

ORPort [2001:db8::1]:9001

Tor doesn't guess IPv6 addresses yet.

T


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] bastet BW scanner barking mad

[teor]

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 13:36, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
> 
> Anyone know what caused bastet's loss of grip on reality?
> 
> 
> 600 IPredator
> 440 xenoidRelay
> 300 PrivacyRepublic0001
> 270 ExitNinja
> 260 DipulseIT2
> 240 hyacinthinus
> 230 PIAzrhexit
> 230 Unnamed
> 220 volatile
> 210 Chenjesu
> 210 drazisil
> 210 exit3
> 210 radieschen
> 200 Spigen
> 200 TotorBE2
> 200 tagos

It's probably a bug in the scaling in the dev version of sbws, or the machine
that sbws is running on is very slow:

bandwidth-file-headers timestamp=1552095292 version=1.2.0 
destinations_countries=HK,ZZ,US earliest_bandwidth=2019-03-04T01:35:26 
file_created=2019-03-09T01:35:03 generator_started=2019-03-09T00:00:59 
latest_bandwidth=2019-03-09T01:34:52 minimum_number_eligible_relays=3970 
minimum_percent_eligible_relays=60 number_consensus_relays=6616 
number_eligible_relays=6247 percent_eligible_relays=94 scanner_country=US 
software=sbws software_version=1.0.3-dev0

http://204.13.164.118/tor/status-vote/current/authority

No need to stress. Medians are designed to ignore outlying values like this.
We'll get it fixed soon.

T


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] bastet BW scanner barking mad

[starlight . 2018q2]

Anyone know what caused bastet's loss of grip on reality?


600 IPredator
440 xenoidRelay
300 PrivacyRepublic0001
270 ExitNinja
260 DipulseIT2
240 hyacinthinus
230 PIAzrhexit
230 Unnamed
220 volatile
210 Chenjesu
210 drazisil
210 exit3
210 radieschen
200 Spigen
200 TotorBE2
200 tagos

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Relay C19B33758B3A5144894233EC4C95D7985B9FD101

[Roger Dingledine]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:52:48PM +0100, ylms wrote:
> Hello,
> I just setup a new exit, I know it takes time to "train", but I would be
> interested in tips on how to tweak it.
> I just replaces a old exit that used the same IP, but unfortunately we
> lost that config/key.
> 
> So any tips are welcome in general.

It looks good so far! Thanks for running it. It is good to see some
good news from your part of Germany, not just bad proposed policies. :)

> I also have some questions.
> 
> Atlas does not show any IPv6 address, is this normal?

I see that you have an ipv6 exit policy set, but I don't see any
ipv6 address in your relay descriptor.

(You can see your relay descriptor with
"wget 5.199.130.188/tor/server/authority" )

If you were advertising an ipv6 address, you would have an "or-address"
line in your descriptor. Compare to Fission1's descriptor:
"wget 158.69.30.132/tor/server/authority"

> WHat loglevel can I set to see if there is any problems, to find
> possible improvements? I know the logging should not be changed, but I
> want tot make sure tor works fine, so I would like to see some more
> information for now.

We recommend notice-level logs. That's what most of the Tor packages
do by default:
https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#LogLevel

Thanks!
--Roger

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] IRC meetup time poll

[Colin Childs]

Hi everyone,

We are looking at changing the current IRC relay operator meetup time, as well 
as adding additional times throughout the month. 

I have created a poll at https://xoyondo.com/dp/oyUpcPqhnnJ6TWz 
 to collect time preferences for the 
next meetup (all times are GMT+0).

Please add your time preferences by March 15th (1 week from today) to help us 
better select times that work for you! 

Thanks, I hope you all have a great weekend! ___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] Relay C19B33758B3A5144894233EC4C95D7985B9FD101

[ylms]

Hello,
I just setup a new exit, I know it takes time to "train", but I would be
interested in tips on how to tweak it.
I just replaces a old exit that used the same IP, but unfortunately we
lost that config/key.

So any tips are welcome in general.

I also have some questions.

Atlas does not show any IPv6 address, is this normal?
WHat loglevel can I set to see if there is any problems, to find
possible improvements? I know the logging should not be changed, but I
want tot make sure tor works fine, so I would like to see some more
information for now.

Thanks for your help.
yl
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] german plans on banning TOR

[Christian Pietsch]

Hi Andreas,
hi Tor relay operators,

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:14:08AM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:
> It's not targeting tor node operators. Neither it is trying to
> make the tor project into a criminal organisation - it's the
> other way round trying to get at 'bad' onion site operators
> even if they are not part of a traditional 'organization',
> as in the internet time and gig economy there are les and
> less such.

I wish you were right, and this may have been the original intention
of this proposed law. However, influential committees have proposed an
amendment to the law that could be read as an attempt to outlaw Tor.

Here is the official summary of the amendment from the Bundesrat
website (from the tab “Ausschussempfehlung”). For a translation, see below.
https://www.bundesrat.de/DE/plenum/bundesrat-kompakt/19/975/10.html#top-10

---8<---
# Ausschüsse sehen noch Strafbarkeitslücken

Rechts- und Innenausschuss halten den Gesetzesantrag für nicht
weitgehend genug. Sie schlagen dem Plenum vor, die Strafverschärfung
für das Anbieten krimineller Dienste im Internet generell und nicht
nur im Darknet einzuführen. Alles andere sei nicht sachgerecht und
würde die Dreistigkeit des unverdeckten Handelns belohnen.

# Ausweitung der Strafbarkeit gefordert

Auch im Übrigen wollen die Ausschüsse den vorgeschlagenen
Straftatbestand erweitern. So soll nicht nur das „Anbieten", sondern
das "Zugänglichmachen" krimineller Dienste unter Strafe gestellt
werden. Diese Formulierung ginge weiter und erfasse beispielsweise
auch den Betrieb von so genannten "bulletproof hosters", bei denen
lediglich der Speicherplatz und das Routing für (kriminelle) Dienste
Dritter zur Verfügung gestellt wird. Erforderlich sei es auch, die
Tathandlungen um das „Erleichtern von Straftaten“ zu erweitern.

# Höherer Strafrahmen

Darüber hinaus fordern die Ausschüsse, den in der Vorlage enthaltenen
Straftatenkatalog zu streichen und das Anbieten krimineller Dienste
losgelöst von bestimmten Straftaten unter Strafe zu stellen.
Aufgenommen werden soll außerdem ein Auslandsbezug: Danach könnten
Leistungen eines Portalbetreibers bestraft werden, die im Ausland
angeboten werden und im Inland rechtswidrige Straftaten ermöglichen.
Der Strafrahmen ist nach Ansicht der Ausschüsse ebenfalls auszuweiten:
Von drei auf fünf Jahre.

# Weitere Ermittlungsmaßnahmen zulassen

Eine weitere Forderung betrifft die Ermittlungsbefugnisse, die an den
neuen Straftatbestand geknüpft sind: Anders als im Gesetzesantrag soll
nicht nur die Telekommunikationsüberwachung, sondern gegebenenfalls
auch die Online-Durchsuchung [Anmerkung: das bedeutet Staatstrojaner],
die akustische Wohnraumüberwachung und die Erhebung von
Verkehrsdaten zulässig sein. Um Straftaten, die mittels
internetbasierter Kommunikation begangen wurden, effektiv zu
verfolgen, seien diese Ermittlungsmaßnahmen erforderlich und
angesichts der Schwere der Tat auch gerechtfertigt.

Das Plenum entscheidet am 15. März, welchen Empfehlungen es folgt.
--->8---


My translation (based on an automatic translation by DeepL):

---8<---
# Committees still see culpability gaps

The committees on Legal and Internal Affairs do not consider the
coverage of the bill broad enough. They propose to the plenary to
increase penalties for offering criminal services on the Internet
generally and not only in the darknet. Anything else is not
appropriate and would reward the audacity of overt action.

# Demanding an extension of culpability

In addition, the committees intend to expand the scope of what
consititutes a criminal offence. Thus, not only the "offering",
but also the the "making available" of criminal services will be a
criminal offence. This formulation would go further and include,
for example, the operation of so-called "bulletproof hosters," in
which only the storage space and routing for (criminal) services
is made available to third parties. The committees also deem it
necessary to punish acts that "facilite committing criminal offences".

# Higher penalties

In addition, the committees request the deletion of the list of
criminal offences in the legal draft, and to make punishable the
offering of criminal services – without regard to certain criminal
offences. In addition, they suggest to add an international aspect:
According to this, it could become punishable to operate a portal
abroad that offers services that enable criminal offences to be
committed domestically. In the view of the committees, maximum
prison sentences should also be extended: From three to five years.

# Allow further in