[tor-relays] relayor v20.1.0 is released
Hi, relayor v20.1.0 is released. relayor is an ansible role that helps you with running tor relays with minimal effort (automate everything). https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor This version contains a bugfix, for corner cases where the newly generated tor configuration would not be used. relayor users are encouraged to update to this release. Changes --- * bugfix: restart tor instead of reloading it when configuration changed (reloading is not supported by tor in all cases) * make tor_ContactInfo variable mandatory * update tor alpha version: 0.4.3 -> 0.4.4 * add support for FreeBSD 11.4 * increase min. ansible version to 2.9.12 kind regards, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] Blog: How Malicious Tor Relays are Exploiting Users in 2020 (Part I)
https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetRadar/2020/08/22/a3 2020-08-22 | Up | Ext | JoinTime | IP| CC | ORp | Dirp | Version | Contact | Nickname | eFamMembers | FP | |--+---++---+--+---++---+---++---+--| |1 | 1 | 12:31:38 | 150.129.8.107 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 1FBDF7B76594A7A702DD165FE3AA0FF9F31E2715 | |1 | 1 | 12:32:52 | 150.129.8.106 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 4839FCED8D9ADC24EAC27875C9DCD77A5C1756AB | |1 | 1 | 12:33:21 | 150.129.8.105 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | D87D6CB4DEB3862D6E19720F82C03478E72F4CD9 | |1 | 1 | 12:33:49 | 150.129.8.104 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 9E56C4C7B820411600309A2208BAADE18E20AA05 | |1 | 1 | 12:34:19 | 150.129.8.103 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | A7CEB94E00C6F2BD3F2F01B98D08C889B2A208CA | |1 | 1 | 12:34:46 | 150.129.8.102 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 495E1C78FF508FF890B2E713DE214C03A6FDC82B | |1 | 1 | 12:35:14 | 150.129.8.101 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 4F6504E761747E7C97BB33476510155CB9080556 | |1 | 1 | 12:35:38 | 150.129.8.100 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 35EC704207E910A588D228E1F4359F4E0A8E27B2 | |1 | 1 | 12:36:14 | 150.129.8.99 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 50232D518707213975BF54E0765B48B75D2EA9C5 | |1 | 1 | 12:36:39 | 150.129.8.98 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 88FA32AA4017EF76149D98620194769FDA034204 | |1 | 1 | 12:37:06 | 150.129.8.97 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | D2396C4220E3084F321E63110869C3F50D14F80C | |1 | 1 | 12:37:33 | 150.129.8.96 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 927903D647C82EB597F5DF5A765D1267ACF62B47 | |1 | 1 | 12:37:59 | 150.129.8.95 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 05F397E91B3F57DD825F7F587740117764889D05 | |1 | 1 | 12:38:24 | 150.129.8.94 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | E02B0740D75858B34ED26C91A7870528D73CEAD1 | |1 | 1 | 12:38:47 | 150.129.8.93 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 2C52CF3F1434E0766F57527349F298F289E6927B | |1 | 1 | 12:39:11 | 150.129.8.92 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 6B5C54A595D55A8CAC0F40AFBC458F8E819233E1 | |1 | 1 | 12:39:33 | 150.129.8.91 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 324F8A1AAD871AE9369B38F73C59330B461E66CA | |1 | 1 | 12:39:55 | 150.129.8.90 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 0CB1BDD5661ACF3CBA223745A06392901E821DFC | |1 | 1 | 12:40:18 | 150.129.8.89 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 07C60B62231B247D39FF3798C86D98A84967928C | |1 | 1 | 12:40:40 | 150.129.8.88 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | B80867D9A92BDF9C51855EF0BA356CC6360148C5 | |1 | 1 | 12:44:58 | 150.129.8.87 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | AF5169DD8D6DD8C0D30ECA83A2078795B41DFD1A | |1 | 1 | 12:45:37 | 150.129.8.86 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 2406BD94F455B873694E314769180ACE9C36BB76 | |1 | 1 | 12:46:01 | 150.129.8.85 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | FCCC526B10AF1C68DBD8C7DAD73C96E5B74A4261 | |1 | 1 | 12:46:24 | 150.129.8.84 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | E9374AEB2099F5A5A4E2E5D47A9FB53BCDA16E61 | |1 | 1 | 12:46:48 | 150.129.8.83 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 2E054C82D0E7EDA39246ED9EBD491904480BC7D7 | |1 | 1 | 12:47:19 | 150.129.8.82 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 88AE4EEAB67903CECC411A6F5898156AD6A46D67 | |1 | 1 | 12:47:50 | 150.129.8.81 | nl | 9001 | 9030 | 0.4.3.6 | None | Unnamed| 1 | 4034D164D11E382664592C989F6A46066B6E1EA0 | |1 | 1 | 12:48:12 | 150.129.8.80 | nl | 9001 | 903
Re: [tor-relays] Tor bandwidth scanner "longclaw" slow to the US West Coast
Hi juga, Sorry for the delayed response. On 2020-08-18 10:05, juga wrote: thanks for reporting this issue. Replying inline: No problem. Tor bandwidth scanners and directory authorities not necessarily run in the same machine/IP and it's the case of longclaw's bandwidth scanner, which is located in the US East Coast. Good to know. If the reason for lower bandwidth measurements is the location -it could be other reasons- then it's weird that it would affect the US West Coast and not Europe, given it's located in the US East Coast. Thanks for telling me. It seems weird, West Coast congestion maybe? To understand why this is happening, it's very helpful that you give us this information. I personally suspect it might not be related to the scanner location. We'll investigate this as part of the issue you opened at https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/sbws/-/issues/40014. It might take some weeks, since a lot of the work done on this topic is volunteer work. Apologies in advance about it. Understood. I don't mind helping if you need help. I am a Core Tor contributor, but am also open to working with sbws. Is anyone else hosting West Coast relays having this issue? Good question. Is "longclaw" actually measuring bandwidth from Europe? If so, WHY? No, it's not measuring bandwidth from Europe. Good to hear. I got in contact with "longclaw"'s admin and he wasn't too helpful. It looks to me that the longclaw's admin has been helpful if they have suggested you to write to this mailing list, so that more people can check this issue and/or they have suggested you to report an issue in gitlab so that the bandwidth scanner developers won't forget about it :) Also, not all directory authorities run bandwidth scanners and not all of them know about the complexity on how bandwidth is determined. Hope it helps. I guess it's really easy to complain and blame longclaw's admin. It could also be peering, but I am not sure. Wave does have congestion issues from time to time, but this affects more than Tor. Sometimes, faravahar also may have this issue, but not to the same extent, and I can't confirm if this is true. Thank you for responding. Best, juga -Neel ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Re: [tor-relays] IPv6 Support or Uptime?
Hi Josh, the Tor network is still mostly IPv4 (https://metrics.torproject.org/relays-ipv6.html), so I would say it's ok to turn IPv6 off on your relay for now, especially if there's a problem with stability. Kind regards, Alexander > Josh Lawson hat am 21.08.2020 00:59 > geschrieben: > > > I have IPv6 with my ISP, but there seems to be a bug in the firmware of > my networking equipment that causes IPv6 to stop working periodically and I > have to take my network down and bring it back up. If I do not do this, my > relay stops functioning as I have torrc configured to use IPv6 and IPv4. So, > my question is whether or not having a higher uptime is more important or > having IPv6 support? My relay never goes down when on IPv4 only. I apparently > cannot have both until the firmware bug is fixed. I appreciate it! > > > > ___ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
