On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:29:01PM +0200, t...@as250.net wrote:
> Absolutely. Most of the infrastructure we provide on that basis and it
> is ok! The reason for running that exit node was that we believed it
> would contribute towards a positive impact in many peoples lives.
Thanks for contributin
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:01:03PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Tor's use of TLS _should_ mean that the worst an attacker can do here
> is denial-of-service. The Register article suggests that they might
> also be able to force the use of specific exit relays (by disrupting
> connections that don
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:00:57PM +0200, Markus Koch wrote:
> I just deleted my best running exit node to move to another vps.
>
> I copied /etc/tor and /var/lib/tor + keys dir and moved it to the new
> vps. I double-checked the files/keys are the same but i still get a
> new fingerprint. Wtf is
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:53:04PM +0200, Markus Koch wrote:
> > Do the log files give you any hints?
>
> I copied all the stuff, checked it and deleted the old vps. So I only see the
> new logfiles and they are fine, tor finds everything but with a different
> fingerprint. If the config would b
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:47:56AM -0400, Chad MILLER wrote:
> I made a tor-middle-relay package, so the TVs, Wifi Routers,
> Toasters, Self-driving Cars, Phones... of the world that are running
> that new kind of Ubuntu (or other OS that implements this package
> system!) can also help the Tor net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:20:03PM +0200, shraptor wrote:
> What's up with these messages I get in tor-arm and log?
>
> Caching new entry debian-tor for debian-tor [62 duplicates hidden]
>
> What is tor doing??
>
> Sep 20 19:10:21.000 [notice] Caching new entry debian-tor for debian-tor
It look
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 02:48:38PM -0700, teor wrote:
> > Installed with apt-get and started simply as a demon aka service tor start
> > Thank you for helping
>
> Have you tried:
>
> >>> sudo su debian-tor --shell /bin/bash --command "ulimit -Sn"
> >>> sudo su debian-tor --shell /bin/bash --comma
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:21:14AM -0500, BlinkTor wrote:
> The technical problem is that implementing IPS in Tor would be massively
> non-trivial.[...]
>
> The political problem is, what gets blocked by TIPS and what doesn???t? Who
> gets to decide? What if some of those brute-force SSH or DOS
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:55:01PM +0200, Markus Koch wrote:
> Everyone is running a reduced exit policy ... I only allow HTTP +
> HTTPS and I know nobody who allows port 25 at the end of the day
> we all shape our exit traffic.
Choosing what to do with your traffic based on headers is fundam
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Markus Koch wrote:
> Thank you very much, interesting. So I could block URLs but not on
> deep packet inspection?
That's where it starts to get murky: where do headers end and contents
begin? It depends what protocol layer you're looking at. Law-makers
spe
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 03:15:46PM +0100, Geoff Down wrote:
> Hi all,
> these are the last entries in my log, but my bridge is still listed on
> Atlas and client functionality is fine. Latest stable version on
> OSX10.4.
> Needless to say, the disk is not full and 'tor' can write to that
> direc
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:31:06AM -0400, Tamara West wrote:
> x 23:13:17 [WARN] Your server (207.172.253.216:80) has not managed to confirm
> x that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until
> x their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Please check your firewalls,
>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 12:42:18PM +, John Ricketts wrote:
> When looking at my list on Atlas (21 entries) I'm seeing that some of my
> relays are getting the Guard flag before they become stable.
>
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/quintex
>
> I'm going to make the assumption this is n
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Dennis Christ wrote:
> I think the problem with CookieAuthentication was that the cookie
> file control_auth_cookie gets written
> to /var/lib/tor. This directory is only readable by user debian-tor
> and not even group readable. I have
> put CookieAuthFile
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:07:56AM +0100, diffusae wrote:
> Is it safe to use 0.2.9 alpha on relays or will it be better to test the
> IPv6 client support by running Tor alpha client in a desktop environment?
In general, more testing of 0.2.9 would be great. Just make sure you stay
up to date as n
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:31:39PM +, Sec INT wrote:
> - this did seem to work and tor detectedthe new address and started to use it
> but then I got a number of warnings like
> 'Remote server sent bogus reason code'
>
> The relay does seem to be working but with these errors im not sure
Tho
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:25:29PM +, Sec INT wrote:
> Hi Thanks for the reply - exit node is all up and running along with 6 relays
> so all happy here - I decided just to keep the main IP
Thanks for running relays!
> One thing I did have was the DirFrontpage parameter in the torrc file
>wa
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 06:06:40PM +, Sec INT wrote:
> On all my relays and Exits I set Dirport as 80 but when I look at Atlas or
> https://torstatus.blutmagie.de all of them bar one are showing 'none' as
> Dirport
Most likely your relay opted not to advertise its DirPort, for
example becaus
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:42:34PM +0200, Rana wrote:
> I hope Tor developers or whoever runs the Tor project are reading this.
Only barely. :/ I bet most of them are unable to keep up with the madness
that this thread has become.
Please, I beg all of you, consider that there are 1700 busy people
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 03:39:20PM +0200, Rana wrote:
> Assuming most of these are bridges, this could be a vulnerability as
>this allows rogue middle relays to enumerate bridges.
Plenty more open research problems where that one came from:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/research-problems-ten-wa
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 02:02:55PM -0700, Dakota Hourie wrote:
> Thanks nesenu, just what I was looking for. And never used ansible before,
> but that looks like it could make managing my soon to be 4 relay servers a
> breeze, will definitely check it out.
Thanks for wanting to run relays!
For 4
On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 09:47:02AM +0200, Rana wrote:
> What are the absolute minimum requirements for becoming a guard?
>
> [I am not asking about being trustworthy which I am obviously not, only
> about bandwidth etc. :)]
The requirements are relative to the other relays in the network:
http
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 06:38:23PM -0800, Kurt Besig wrote:
> I just installed tor on a Raspberry Pi 3 Model B and can't get a relay
> to start unless I sudo. When I attempt to start tor as a non-privileged
> user I get a permissions error: Opening Jan 05 18:33:35.929 [notice]
> Opening OR listener
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 08:14:52AM +, je suis wrote:
> And my apologies if this turns out to be a simple, obvious answer, but
> ever since two(?) upgrades back, my entry relay never changed. I
> manually deleted Browser/TorBrowser/Data/Tor/state and only then it
> changed. As of the last delete
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:49:46PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
> Or you need adequate anonymity, and be willing to lose sunk cost.
I think trying to run exit relays with anonymity, and with plans to
discard them as needed, is a poor plan long-term. In the struggle for
what the Internet can become, we ne
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:55:10PM +1100, teor wrote:
> Occasionally, the tor process fails to shut down a pluggable transport
> process when tor exits. I believe this is an unavoidable consequence of
> unexpected or unclean tor shutdowns or crashes.
Right. This is why we changed the design in 0.2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:04:30PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> If you are on some earlier version of 0.2.9.x, it would be really
> great if you could update your relay some time soon
And, if you're one of the many relays still on 0.2.9.8, and the reason
is something other than "oops, you're rig
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 07:48:10PM +, mick wrote:
> I am. (Debian Jessie 8.7 - using the tor repos).
>
> Attempting an upgrade from 0.2.9.8 I get nothing.
Weasel suggests that you run "apt-cache policy tor" and remember
what it says, then "apt-get update", then "apt-cache policy tor"
again an
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:51:14PM +0100, Maarten A. wrote:
> My log indicates Tor 0.2.5.12 (git-6350e21f2de7272f)
[...]
> I think I read somewhere debian does security backport, hence the old
> version numbers. You probably know this already.
>
> I'm running Debian GNU/Linux 8.7 (jessie)
Yep, th
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 02:36:30AM -0600, Andrew Deason wrote:
> No no, that was just me thinking about how they could/should go about
> it. I just meant, some form of downloading the entire list, instead of
> checking one-by-one via TorDNSEL.
>
> If the consensus doc shouldn't be used for this, w
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06:32:56PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> So I'm bringing my Tor relay back online
Great!
> Short bursts of packet loss like this, if someone
> was doing that deliberately with a set pattern, would have been an ideal
> way to watermark streams going in and out of the
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:06:06PM +, Logforme wrote:
> Just upgraded my relay 855BC2DABE24C861CD887DB9B2E950424B49FC34 to
> 0.2.9.10 and now I get a new warning in the log file:
>
> Mar 13 12:02:22.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done
> Mar 13 12:03:20.000 [warn] Cannot make an outgoing conne
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 08:26:35PM -0500, Andrew Deason wrote:
> Ideally I'd submit a bug for this
Turns out there is one already:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/21769
Patches (to the webwml git repo) appreciated!
--Roger
___
tor-rela
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 02:20:42PM +0100, Chris wrote:
> However, it no longer has the exit node flag and the consensus is very
> low (20). It also is not listed as a directory.
>
> I suspect something else during the upgrade has broken it as I had some
> SELinux issues binding to the ports before
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 08:20:39PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> How does the tor daemon read the GeoIP database file? Does it read the
> whole file once when starting up, or every time it needs to resolve an
> IP, or something in between (say, it builds an index in memory on
> startup and then se
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:54:55PM +0200, niftybunny wrote:
> >Known TOR exit nodes are listed within the Security Intelligence feed of ASA
> >Firepower devices. Enabling this to be blacklisted will prevent outbound
> >communications to TOR networks.
>
> Wait, what?
To help you be less surprise
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:17:33AM +0200, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> > | https://dist.torproject.org/torbrowser/6.5.1/tor-win32-0.2.9.10.zip
>
> Was the increased number of downloads from the malware visibile from the
> logs?
I looked, and there were a few hundred downloads per day. It didn't
look
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:58:26AM +0200, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> Interesting. In fact, I though that downloading the whole browser seemed
> to be not so smart, surely there are better ways to connect
> programmatically to the tor network.
It is not the whole browser -- it is the "windows exper
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:22:17PM +0100, Geoff Down wrote:
> 72 hours now on 2.9.9 with no clock jumps. Still occasional timeouts as
> per above.
Hi Geoff,
Any news on your strange clock jumps? Have you tried Tor 0.3.0.x
for your bridge or relay also?
I ask because
https://trac.torproject.org
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:21:36PM +0200, aeris wrote:
> Currently, my server hosting kitten1 and kitten2 (tor guard and fallback
> directory) is under seizure since 14/05 11h.
> Private key are under encrypted volume and may be protected, but please
> revoke
> immediatly kitten1 & kitten2 tor n
For those of you who are not on tor-announce... now would be a good
time to remember to subscribe to tor-announce. :)
--Roger
- Forwarded message from Nick Mathewson -
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 18:57:59 -0400
From: Nick Mathewson
To: tor-annou...@lists.torproject.org
Subject: [tor-announc
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:04:29PM +0200, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> I run a couple of relays with Debian 7 Wheezy, which is the old stable
> version.
Thanks for running relays!
> AS you can see from the Debian package page[1] the latest available
> version of Tor packaged for Wheezy is 0.2.4.27-
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:13:55PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> But it's my understanding that Debian wheezy becomes oldoldstable once
> Squeeze is declared stable? Meaning now would be a good time for you to
> consider upgrading anyway? :)
Whoops, I meant Stretch, not Squeeze.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:45:26PM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian.html.en
> >
> > You'd probably tell it you use old stable and want Tor version stable.
> > After a couple of apt commands, I predict you will end up with Tor 0.3.0.7
>
> No he will not, as n
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 04:01:04AM +0200, Tobias Sachs wrote:
> any idea how to avoid the guard flag at this time?
> My only idea is to trottle down the speed but this is a bad solution imho.
I don't think there's an easy way.
If you set "DirCache 0" in your torrc file, then you will still get
th
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 09:12:39AM +0200, Petrusko wrote:
> What will they find ?
> A Debian who ask a password to unlock the system, or it will stop booting ?
> Yeah, if police can read the system entirely, it looks like impossible
> to find something about the guyz behind the wannacry software ?
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:48:31PM +0200, niftybunny wrote:
> Same with 0.3.0.5. Upgrading to 0.3.0.7 helped on most relays.
We didn't change anything between 0.3.0.5 and 0.3.0.7 that would
have helped.
If somebody with a really really fast CPU wants to run their relay under
valgrind --leak-chec
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:01:10AM +, John Ricketts wrote:
> Roger,
>
> I have whatever resources you need for testing. Let me know if you would
> like them.
1)
git clone https://git.torproject.org/git/tor
cd tor.git
./autogen.sh && ./configure && make
2) edit /etc/security/limits.conf to
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 01:43:37PM +1000, teor wrote:
> > HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/SERVICE_NAME/
>
> What are the permissions on each of the enclosing directories?
> (Tor checks permissions recursively in some cases.)
>
> In 0.3.0.7, we made a number of hidden service checks stricter.
> Perh
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:32:49AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> The better fix imo will be
> for Tor to stop doing behavior that the apparmor profile wants to prevent,
> such as trying to read directories before it has switched uids. I'll
> open a ticket about that once I u
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:49:38PM +0200, tor-relay.d...@o.banes.ch wrote:
> Hello Roger,
>
> I updated the ticket. You will find the output of the valgrind there as
> well:
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/attachment/ticket/22255/valgrind.txt
Well, you are a winner, in that you found a
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 07:51:50PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Well, you are a winner, in that you found a new Tor bug (in
> 0.3.1.1-alpha):
> https://bugs.torproject.org/22368
>
> Once we resolve that one, I'll ask for another valgrind run. :)
Ok, we merged the fi
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:20:16PM -0700, Arisbe wrote:
> I just made an interesting observation that I thought I would share.
> Yesterday I started a VPS exit relay at a well known hosting company
> in Moldova [0]. Within 24 hours I saw the consensus weight exceed
> 1. The relay is bandwidth
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 12:30:20AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Late Wednesday afternoon, I restarted my relay (MYCROFTsOtherChild),
> which changed it from 0.3.0.6 to 0.3.0.7. That was the only change I made.
> It went through a normal startup and published its descriptor. After a few
> ho
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 07:14:06PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Which versions are the Running votes coming from versus the non-Running?
You can see the votes at
https://www.seul.org/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes
> I have a few commands in a crontab entry that extract relay IP addresses
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:50:54PM -0400, David Goulet wrote:
> On 07 Jun (19:41:00), nusenu wrote:
> > DocTor [1] made me look into this.
> >
> > _All_ 65 relays in the following table have the following characteristics:
> > (not shown in the table to safe some space)
>
> Yah, we got a report on
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Consider another case. Users have often complained that running a tor
> relay results in their IP addresses being blocked by all manner of services
> around the Internet. The providers of those services say they have suffered
>
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 01:05:43AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> > I think you will find this is not an uncommon configuration among
> > high-bandwidth relays.
>
> I will check further into the procedure for which Roger posted a URL
> to see whether it will indeed give me a list of such addre
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:04:31PM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> I tried moving a tor relay with offline master key to a new host but
> something went wrong and it printed several warnings:
>
> http status 400 ("Looks like your keypair does not match its older value.")
> response from dirserv
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:52:31PM +0200, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
> Well Faravahar is finally back but im still wondering why my System (located
> in France) is measured by exactly 1 System a few thousand miles away.
Actually, it's measured by three bwauths. You can look it up on
https://www.freeh
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:49:58AM +1000, teor wrote:
> > There is fresh geoip data posted on maxmind.com monthly. Doesn't it
> > make sense to have the daemon use it?
>
> No, we process the file, and update it when we do a release.
> And at that point, the tor daemon is restarted anyway.
>
> Ge
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:58:02PM +0200, Felix wrote:
> [warn] channelpadding_compute_time_until_pad_for_netflow: Bug: Channel
> padding timeout scheduled 212ms in the past. Did the monotonic clock just
> jump? (on Tor 0.3.1.3-alpha dc47d936d47ffc25)
https://bugs.torproject.org/22212
> and
>
>
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:01:48PM -0700, Joel Cretan wrote:
> If anyone at DEF CON is interested in meeting up, perhaps we could set up a
> meeting time, maybe in/around the Crypto and Privacy Village. Of course
> we're all interested in anonymity, so no pressure to speak up. But if
> enough peopl
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:48:35PM +0300, Vort wrote:
> > This sort of thing has been going on for many years. I used to refer
> > to it as "mobbing". As nearly as I was ever able to determine, the behavior
> > is an unintended consequence of hidden services.
>
> Same thing started to happe
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:52:00PM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> I moved a Tor relay to new hardware, keeping the keys. Both old and new
> server are located in Germany and provided by the same hosting company.
> After the latest Atlas update, I was surprised to see that the IPv4
> address is list
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:34:35PM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> after updating to Tor 0.3.0.10, I see the following warning on my nodes:
>
> This version of Tor (0.3.0.10) is newer than any recommended version
> in its series, according to the directory authorities.
>
> Could on
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:58:01AM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > No, dropbear is an SSH server that 8.8.8.8 seems to be running.
>
> Did you try ssh'ing into 8.8.8.8 (outside of Tor)? It does not run a public
> SSH server at all (obviously).
>
> The point was to demonstrate that the exit node i
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:41:34AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Right -- it seems clear that there is some exit relay out there that is
> handling requests for 8.8.8.8:22 (and probably *:22) poorly. If somebody
> can tell us which one it is, we'll get rid of it.
Ok, we have
Hi relay operators!
I want to let you know about two upcoming research projects by academic
research groups. The tl;dr is that they're running relays to do certain
measurements, and so far as we can tell the proposed methodology is
safe enough and worthwhile enough, but we invite you (and everybod
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:03:00PM +, nusenu wrote:
> Note: There is nothing wrong with adding 60 tor relays, especially with
> proper MyFamily configuration as you did.
Hi Nusenu,
You beat me by a day -- I had drafted my earlier mail about the two
research groups running relays, but decided
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:15:00AM +, nusenu wrote:
> Isn't that more relevant to HS operators than relay operators?
No, not really. The relay operator community is the one with standards and
consensuses about what counts as a well-behaving relay, and what kinds of
"groups of relays that might
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 07:53:03PM -0400, priv...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
> We are using Online S.a.s because it it is cheap (I guess it's the same
> reason why others use it). We will check in the next couple of days if there
> is an alternative low cost provider.
If I understand the threat model f
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 08:51:05PM +0200, Dirk wrote:
> I observed the same thing on our new exit. atlas says its down - but
> actually it is working. Did you test if you could exit through your
> relay at this time ?
Another thing to check is whether your relay is listed in the consensus
document
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:52:31PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Does a particular Tor server/client will open more than 1 connection
>at a time from to the DirPort ?
I think we definitely want to support that in the protocol.
I'm not sure whether it happens right now, but it might.
But prevent
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
> I was asked recently by friends & family if i could get the traditional Tor
> shirt for them. I showed them the new Tor shirt and well let's say they
> really want the traditional shirt.
Which one is new and which one is tradition
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:43:10AM +1000, teor wrote:
> > A new DFRI7 will appear on the same address and port within a couple of
> > days. Should I simply update fallback_dirs.inc?
>
> No need to do anything right away!
Will it be bad to have a new relay (with a new key), on the same IP:port
as
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:33:26AM +0930, W Howard wrote:
> I have some spare bandwidth and want to run an exit relay
Is this at your home? Careful running exit relays at your home -- there
is always some new cop who just started his job, doesn't understand the
Internet, has never heard of Tor, an
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:53:39PM +0930, W Howard wrote:
> Thanks for the information. I wanted to run a relay from home to
>support the project but I may instead contribute financially.
You could do both! :) That is, run a non-exit relay from home, and
also donate.
https://www.torproject.org/do
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:39:34PM +0100, Dr Gerard Bulger wrote:
> DIR port on my relay and mini exit as being there on Atlas.
>
> The DIR port is open, indeed the DirPortFrontPage can be seen.
>
> Bandwidth is ???fast???
>
> The exit is very limited in scope to avoid abuse claims, so few por
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 01:17:14AM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> I also tried using a control socket instead of a control port, alas, the
> parameter RelaxDirModeCheck is rejected by Tor 0.3.0.10:
>
> [warn] Failed to parse/validate config: Unknown option
> 'RelaxDirModeCheck'. Failing.
> [
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 07:14:58AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 22:56:17 +, r1610091651 wrote:
> > RelayBandwidthRate 2048 KBytes
> > RelayBandwidthBurst 2048 KBytes
> >
> > But using arm, I'm seeing that tor is not honoring these settings, with
> > bursts frequently exceed
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:52:09PM -0400, Matt Traudt wrote:
> His intentions are now very suspicious to me too. I will definitely not
> be pointing anything at his servers.
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2017-August/012735.html
Yes, I agree.
I wonder if there's a way to scan
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:10:00PM +, nusenu wrote:
> I suggested family-level pages where an operator of more than one relay
> can see all the relays of his family including aggregated (stacked)
> graphs for the graphs that are already available on a per-relay level.
Good idea.
The Nos Oigno
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 11:44:41PM +, dawuud wrote:
> > Your only option would be to ask your ISP to uncensor the internet,
> > unfortunately. Tor requires that all relays are able to contact all
> > other relays, and those which cannot participate in the network.
>
> I think you meant to say:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:32:00PM +, nusenu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [1] is not maintained since a long time.
> I'm curious what the reason for assigning the badexit flag to [2]
> was. If you know anything about it and can share something, that would
> be great.
>
> [2] https://atlas.torproject.org/
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 01:04:28PM +, John Ricketts wrote:
> I am about to fire up more Exit Relays and if I do so I will jump from my
> roughly 3% of Exit Probability to what technically could easily reach 6-8%.
>
> I would like to know everyone???s opinion on having an individual operator
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Felix wrote:
> Sep 26 18:59:37.000 [err]
> tor_assertion_failed_: Bug: src/common/buffers.c:651:
> buf_flush_to_socket: Assertion *buf_flushlen <= buf->datalen failed;
> aborting.
Neat! Can you open a ticket on https://bugs.torproject.org/ ?
With as m
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:29:29AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> B9A41AD7AE8B2A4E6DE96EE77E3C8C04BADA8AC0 is currently down because
> harware died this morning. I will either reinstall it or move to
> a different AS. In any case, it won't happen tomorrow. I hope to
> have it up and running on t
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:27:22PM -0400, tor wrote:
> In a relay's logs:
>
> Oct 20 10:31:47 X Tor[]: We're low on memory. Killing circuits with
> over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.)
> Oct 20 10:32:11 X Tor[]: Removed 1565259696 bytes by killing 1
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:28:34AM +0100, Dylan Issa wrote:
> To add on this, if my Tor relay was restarted for a reason (resets downtime)
> but previously had ~50 days uptime, if I get the remaining 10 days am I
> eligible? Or must it be at least 60 days of continuous uptime?
> Because I had 50
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:54:38AM -0700, Michael McLoughlin wrote:
> Yes I am very aware of Tom van der Woerdt's previous work, and I am
> attempting to avoid some of the problems he faced. This implementation is
> pure Go, so I will not have cgo-based issues at least.
Great! Yes, I think the mem
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 02:56:03PM -0700, Michael McLoughlin wrote:
> After another look at the spec, I still believe the descriptor I'm
> publishing conforms, as was my intention. Sorry to have caused all these
> problems :(
No, don't apologize! It's great that there are people implementing
from
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 03:20:47PM +0100, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
> "Exit" -- A router is called an 'Exit' iff it allows exits to at least one
> /8 address space on each of ports 80 and 443. (Up until Tor version 0.3.2,
> the flag was assigned if relays exit to at least two of the ports 80, 443,
>
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 04:21:10PM -0700, Igor Mitrofanov wrote:
> It looks like 94.7% of all Running relays have the "Fast" flag now. If
> that percentage becomes 100%, the flag will become meaningless.
> What were the reasons behind the current definition of "Fast", and are
> those still valid? I
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:23:07AM +, Paul Templeton wrote:
> These nodes are popping up everywhere - is this some sort of malware being
> deployed on systems around the globe?
It is an Ubuntu snap package. See this thread:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-August/010046.
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:16:42PM -0500, Kijani wrote:
> Does anyone have a script for periodically updating strick exit nodes lists
> after running an inspection as per
> https://tc.gtisc.gatech.edu/bss/2014/r/spoiled-onions-slides.pdf or similar?
> Looking to help protect against crypto trans
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:06:11PM -0500, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
> The population of these has been climbing for more than a week and no-one has
> commented, which seems odd. No contact provided.
>
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/UbuntuCore
See this thread:
https://lists.tor
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:11:47PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> It's currently good to be restrictive. May-be a *per ip* limit of 20
> (slow DoS) and a *per ip* rate of 1 per sec (fast DoS) is good.
I'm getting up to speed on this issue (been absent for some days).
My current thought is that these are a
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:11:47PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> My current thought is that these are actually Tor clients, not intentional
> denial-of-service attacks, but there are millions of them so they are
> producing surprises and damage. (Also, maybe there is not a human behind
> each of the Tor
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 03:33:23PM -0500, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
> I realize we're in the middle of the Christmas / New Year dead week, but it
> would be great one of the developers could says something (anything) about
> the ongoing denial-of-service attacks.
Still alive! Some of u
1 - 100 of 578 matches
Mail list logo
