> On 13 Jan 2016, at 10:33, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>
>
>> At 19:20 1/12/2016 +0100, Aeris wrote:
Are you *absoultely* certain that the config
was not fiddled with at the time of this event?
>>>
>>> After grepping some logs, seems 13/12 was the day of a Tor
>>> upgrade :
>>>
Just sent a request to the contact of
three affected relays asking they post
daemon log entries if they have them.
Hopefully someone can retrieve the
information and it will shed some
light on what's happening.
At 10:33 1/13/2016 +1100, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>>At 19:20 1/12/2016 +0100,
> At 19:20 1/12/2016 +0100, Aeris wrote:
>>> Are you *absoultely* certain that the config
>>> was not fiddled with at the time of this event?
>>
>> After grepping some logs, seems 13/12 was the day of a Tor
>> upgrade :
>>
>> 2015-12-13 10:47:31 upgrade tor:amd64 0.2.7.5-1~d80.jessie+1
>> 0.2.7
Yup, the authority operators are aware of them and think they've taken
action. If these relays are still in the consensus then let us know.
We're not really sure the story behind them but if you're reading mr.
cloudvps operator then please reach out to us. We'd love to chat.
Cheers! -Damian
On T
Improved list:
BF0FB582E37F738CD33C3651125F2772705BB8E8 12-28:17 quadhead
86E78DD3720C78DA8673182EF96C54B162CD660C 12-13:11 kitten1
6DE61A6F72C1E5418A66BFED80DFB63E4C77668F 12-19:11 eriador
39F096961ED2576975C866D450373A9913AFDC92 12-28:06 metaether
92CFD9565B24646CAC2D172D3DB503D69E777B8A 12-16:1
hi,
just wondering whats the matter with these 66+ relays "cloudvps" ...
guess they get vote, should we discard some iprages?
thanks
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-r
Dug into the situation Aeris reported where his
kitten1 relay was nixed off the fallback
directory list due to a single consensus
where the dir-port was published as zero.
Quickly found three additional very fast
very stable relays where the same thing
happened:
BF0FB582E37F738CD33C3651125F277270
I'd guess a bug in the version update script.
At 19:20 1/12/2016 +0100, Aeris wrote:
>> Are you *absoultely* certain that the config
>> was not fiddled with at the time of this event?
>
>After grepping some logs, seems 13/12 was the day of a Tor
>upgrade :
>
>2015-12-13 10:47:31 upgrade tor:amd6
> Are you *absoultely* certain that the config
> was not fiddled with at the time of this event?
After grepping some logs, seems 13/12 was the day of a Tor upgrade :
2015-12-13 10:47:31 upgrade tor:amd64 0.2.7.5-1~d80.jessie+1
0.2.7.6-1~d80.jessie+1
2015-12-13 10:48:39 configure tor:amd64 0.2.7.
Since about 3 months i am running a small middle relay with Advertised
Bandwidth of 1 MB/s.
The ISP cuts the line every night as its common on most German private
DSL. The relay therefore doesn't get a stable-flag :-(
What is the amount of traffic i could/should possibly generate?
Is a utilizati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/12/2016 05:54 PM, Aeris wrote:
> Hum… Don’t know how is it possible, this relay has the same IP/port since it
> creation 1 year ago.
Ah - and much more important, I probably will change its IP address in the near
future, b/c 1 of 2 hard disk
Perhaps this is a bug in the consensus
system. Pulling the consensus archive and
grepping, exactly the one single consensus
is showing DirPort as zero:
12-13-09-cons:r kitten1 vG0ZWLi31UXoqz4H2H/hweSvxqo 04:44:19
62.210.124.124 9001 9030
12-13-10-cons:r kitten1 vG0ZWLi31UXoqz4H2H/hweSvxqo 04:4
> DEBUG:root:86E78DD3720C78DA8673182EF96C54B162CD660C not a candidate: changed
> address/port recently (2015-12-13 11:00:00)
Hum… Don’t know how is it possible, this relay has the same IP/port since it
creation 1 year ago.
From CollecTor, seems there is only a single network glitch, and only on
At 16:56 1/12/2016 +0100, you wrote:
>Is this list removes already included fallback nodes ?
>Previously, my node kitten1 was on the list, but
>not on this one.
>(I already opt-in for it inclusion on december,
>with my others nodes (kitten[1-4])).
Reason is listed in the the attachment
to the bug-
> Here's the latest list of fallback directory candidates:
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/attachment/ticket/15775/fallback_di
> rs.inc.20160112
Is this list removes already included fallback nodes ?
Previously, my node kitten1 was on the list, but not on this one.
(I
On 12.1.16 9:47, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 05:35 AM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>> If you run an under-utilised exit, we encourage you to opt-in as a
>> fallback directory.
>> We've also fixed a major bug that excluded some relays from the list.
>
> Well, I to amintain an exit with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/12/2016 05:35 AM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
> If you run an under-utilised exit, we encourage you to opt-in as a
> fallback directory.
> We've also fixed a major bug that excluded some relays from the list.
Well, I to amintain an exit wit
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 23:30, Joost Rijneveld wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>> On 17 Dec 2015, at 15:07, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> If your relay is on this list, and you expect it to be on the same IP
>> address(es) and port for at least 2 years, please consider opting-in
>> for this trial.
>
> I realise
Hi all,
> On 17 Dec 2015, at 15:07, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> If your relay is on this list, and you expect it to be on the same IP
> address(es) and port for at least 2 years, please consider opting-in
> for this trial.
I realise it's been a while since the last post in this thread, but
I'd like t
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 16:09, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
>
> Hmm, don't see the script in this Git repository,
> most recently updated files are from a month ago.
Yes, my branch has some bug fixes that are awaiting review before they get
merged into tor master.
>
>
> At 15:35 1/12/201
20 matches
Mail list logo
