> On 4 Mar 2018, at 17:50, peter.zehet...@liwest.at wrote:
>
> OK, but what is this:
>
> Mar 03 21:36:31.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in
> state 9: No such file or directory
> Mar 03 21:51:46.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in
> state 9: No
OK, but what is this:
Mar 03 21:36:31.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in
state 9: No such file or directory
Mar 03 21:51:46.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in
state 9: No such file or directory
Mar 03 21:56:51.000 [warn] Failed to start child pro
On 03/03/2018 04:27 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 03.03.2018 07:11, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> Apparently the link from my blog post, to
>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines
>> no longer has any mention pro or con disk encryption. I wonder if that
>> was intention
MLTorNode:
> Is it possibile? I have one dynamic public IP with one relay server published
> on
> ORPort 443 and DIRport 80 (with IPv6 ORPort too).
> Can i add a second relay with OR and DIR natted on other ports published on
> the
> same IP of the first server?
you can run up to two tor rel
Is it possibile? I have one dynamic public IP
with one relay server published on ORPort 443 and DIRport 80 (with
IPv6 ORPort too).
Can i add a second relay with OR and DIR natted on other ports
published on the same IP of the first server?
Thanks in
consensus-health
(https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health)
wrote:
> WARNING: The following authorities are missing from the consensus: tor26,
> dizum
> NOTICE: tor26 had 6216 Guard flags in its vote but the consensus had 1855
> NOTICE: tor26 had 0 Exit flags i
On 03/02/2018 01:17 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Turns out the issue was that the default bwauth backend (the server that
> serves the bandwidth files) went offline during our efforts to shuffle
> things around so www.torproject.org could survive this week's 15-20gbps
> ddos attack on our websi
Hi!
There are new security releases today. The official announcement just
went to tor-announce, but I want to make sure that people on this list
see it too.
In brief:
* Directory authorities should upgrade.
* Relays running 0.3.2.1-alpha through 0.3.2.9 should upgrade.
* Relays running 0.3
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On February 21, 2018 10:37 AM, nusenu wrote:
> notatorserver:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just setup a tor-relay and I am wondering if the resource
> > requirements are still current:> "A non-exit relay faster than 40MBit/s
> > should have at least 1 GB of RAM.
On 03.03.2018 07:11, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Apparently the link from my blog post, to
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines
> no longer has any mention pro or con disk encryption. I wonder if that
> was intentionally removed by the torservers.net folks (maybe they
Roger Dingledine:
> Capturing the on-disk keys from a relay will let them impersonate the
> relay in the future
To limit possibility to impersonate a relay in the future, operators can run in
OfflineMasterKey mode
with a short SigningKeyLifetime (i.e. 5 days) and push key material via SSH to
t
> On 3 Mar 2018, at 18:32, peter.zehet...@liwest.at wrote:
>
> Mar 03 00:05:38.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable
> from the outside. Excellent.
> Mar 03 00:05:45.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done.
> Mar 03 00:09:29.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates y
12 matches
Mail list logo
