On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Chris Whittleston wrote:
Aha - makes sense, I'll just build it myself. Thanks for the quick response.
So - the new handshake in 0.2.4.x doesn't help with the ongoing issues? On
that page I linked it was suggested it might...
It does help! It helps
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:37:55AM +0200, nsane wrote:
Hello,
there is a Tor setting MaxOnionQueueDelay in torrc (see
https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual-dev.html.en) with a default
of 1750 msec.
As operator of a Tor relay 0.2.4.17-rc (on Debian) I would like to know
were I can
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0800, I wrote:
Why not?
I've been running a middle relay for years in my private net behind one
adress. no problems there. You should just never run an exit relay there.
EFF recommends against it in their Legal FAQ:
Should I run an exit relay from my
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:19:42PM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am seeing many of these messages in the logs of torland1/torland2:
Sep 21 12:09:34.000 [warn] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server
at 76.73.17.194:9090. It seems that our clock is ahead by 15969 days, 10
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0500, David Carlson wrote:
Considering
more sophisticated methods to detect and differentiate legitimate
activity from nefarious activity would be too difficult, i suppose.
The step after that is when they intentionally over-list in order to try
to
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:08:27PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
Once the network gets big enough so that each node and client doesnt
know all the nodes ip addresses, is there a compelling reason that ip
addresses of relays which are non-exit and non-guard need to be
published to the outside
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:56:22AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Just check out the idkneitzel Node.
You are not running an Exit node, all of this is irrelevant to you.
Right.
But for those here who are wondering about running large exit relays,
check out
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:50:46AM -0700, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
The replay has settled into a fairly steady state (after losing its
flags except Named) of sending 5-10KB more per sec than it gets. I
have a feeling this is literally due to the TAP replies being bigger
than the TAP requests.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:10:25AM -0400, t...@t-3.net wrote:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only
reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is
ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no
chance at anonymity
Think
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Christian Dietrich wrote:
Now my problem is that tor relay #2 generates almost no traffic.
https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/myTOR
Log Relay #2:
Circuit handshake stats since last time: 63/63 TAP, 1/1 NTor.
Heartbeat: Tor's uptime
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:20:18PM -0400, Michael Gorbach wrote:
Nope, I don?t have any special pluggable transports configured in my
torrc, which is odd. What other processes would for be starting kicking
off? All I have set in torrc is [...] PortForwarding
That's likely the one!
You might be
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:08:58PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
I was using arm when I noticed this line:
173.79.154.243 -- 173.79.154.243 (us) Purpose:
Ags=is_internal,need_capacity, Circuit ID: 5
4.0m (CIRCUIT)
That's
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Stephan wrote:
On 11.09.2013 10:05, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
Sep 10 08:59:40.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new
connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit
now.
I'm just taking a wild guess here,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10:07AM -0600, Jesse Victors wrote:
Do I have to maintain an uptime of ~70 days to see fully utilization
then? This relay is on a personal computer with a static IP, so it isn't
on a dedicated server or anything like that. Usually my uptime is around
several weeks
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:16:51PM -0400, t...@t-3.net wrote:
I updated our node to the RC version some days ago. Earlier today,
it started to do a traffic amount that was higher than it had been
configured to do in torrc. Torrc was configured for 35M use and 40M
burst, but today it went to
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:00:08PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
MB (capital B) = Megabyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte
Mb (small b) = Megabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabit
But torrc does not support specifying rate limits in megabits anyway.
In 0.2.5 (aka git master
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:23:12PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
I scrapped my previous exit node and set up a new one on a different
machine. It's been running for 6 and a half hours, but does not have the
exit flag. The logs say both my ORPort and DirPort are reachable from the
outside, and
Hi folks,
I just released 0.2.4.17-rc. Hopefully there will be debs of it soon.
It comes with a new feature:
- Relays now process the new NTor circuit-level handshake requests
with higher priority than the old TAP circuit-level handshake
requests. We still process some TAP
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:54:57AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
In my spare time I'm also working on a blog post to explain what's going
on and what measures we're taking to keep things afloat.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/how-to-handle-millions-new-tor-clients
--Roger
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:57:24PM +0200, Niels Hesse wrote:
Oh, okay.
Thank you for your answer.
I really hope this will be resolved somehow.
Keep an eye on
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9657
if you want to follow along.
--Roger
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 06:57:38PM -0800, I wrote:
Hej,brbrOn trying to get a non-exit relay going on a cheap VPS Vidalia
saysbrSep 02 03:48:32.146 [Warning] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time
from server at 128.31.0.34:9101.nbsp; It seems that our clock is ahead by 9
hours, 0 minutes,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:30:33PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
On 13-08-29 10:35 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
What on earth is causing so many circuit creation requests in such a
short timespan?
One possibility, if i recall correctly, is that the Tor that comes with
the PirateBrowser
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Tor Exit wrote:
Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
their node with their own moral beliefs?
I really would like to support this if I could.
Specifically, I'd love a way for exit relay operators to only allow
people to do
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:41:39PM +0800, TonyXue wrote:
Hi,
Today when I was using htop to check my Tor server. I found that Tor was
running as /usr/sbin/tor --defaults-torrc
/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush which seems Tor is not
using the configuration file
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Tom McLoughlin wrote:
I'm looking for a VPS to run a tor exit node on, any ideas?
Be sure to check out the wiki page:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISPs
for what others have said in the past.
And if you have anything to add or
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:13:09PM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:03:58 +, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
It'd be nice if dynamic DNS could solve this somehow, but it can't with
the current implementation. :/
Even if - it wouldn't help those users that have an open
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:43:00PM +0100, Nick wrote:
I have a reasonable ADSL connection, and a little always-on server.
The bandwidth is in the region of 2Mib/s down, something less up
(maybe 256Kib/s). Is it useful for me to run a tor relay with this
bandwidth? I'd like to run one which
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:20:02AM -, te...@tormail.org wrote:
I've been seeing these storms as well on my relay. I average something
like 100 connections for weeks and weeks per the tor logs, but then
suddenly it will jump into the thousands and I'll see the Failed to hand
off onionskin.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:45:03PM -0700, Daniel Wu wrote:
There are these connections, from 127.0.0.1 back to itself. Some sort of
internal process used by Tor? Not as concerned about these, since these
are internal. But still curious.
TCP 127.0.0.1:63417 127.0.0.1:63418 ESTABLISHED
TCP
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:09:44AM +0200, Dennis Ljungmark wrote:
You should be able to use normal ulimit style settings, Limiting open
files count (a socket is an open file).
Yes, you can do this, but it will degrade your relay (and hurt the
network) because it will unpredictably hang up on
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:09PM +0100, Moritz Bartl wrote:
On 12.03.2013 08:41, jv...@altsci.com wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone receives a large number of DMCA infringement
notices and whether there was a resolution.
We do. Given that none of the regular DMCA complaint companies were
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:26PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
Mar 12 16:13:57.000 [warn] Received http status code 504 (Gateway Time-out)
from server '154.35.32.5:80' while fetching consensus directory.
I've seen several reports of that lately. I assume Sina's directory
authority is
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:54:59PM +, Matt Joyce wrote:
I'm a little confused though for some reason only two of the instances
show up in atlas, the other one just keeps complaining it isn't in the
cached consensus and isn't seeing any usage either consensus health over
at metrics mentions
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:41:54PM +, Chris Baines wrote:
I am having some problems with tor (version 0.2.3.25-1), I get
warnings when it resumes form hibernation:
Feb 11 00:00:00.000 [warn] Could not bind to 0.0.0.0:80: Permission denied
Feb 11 00:00:00.000 [notice] Opening OR listener on
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:21PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
On Friday, January 4, 2013 3:38pm, mick m...@rlogin.net said:
[snip]
Thanks for the pointer - but yes, I'd prefer to stay away from the US.
I think the US is probably already well served with tor nodes.
Yes, about 25% of all
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:28:30AM -0700, Brock Tice wrote:
Hello all,
I follow the guide for avoiding abuse notices, and generally I only
get 1/year of the DMCA variety. However, I recently received this
complaint, which appears to show spam originating from my Tor server
(209.188.113.101
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:25:59PM +0200, tagnaq wrote:
It is quite sad that one has to find out about 'critical' security
updates [0] via an unrelated thread on tor-talk [1] or the blog [2]
instead of getting an announcement on tor-announce [3] - where relay
operators are probably expecting
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:00:56PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines
Comments? Do you want to see something else in an article that says Tor
Exit Guidelines?
Thanks!
I've updated the page to include some more suggestions. Please
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:15:46AM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
It would be good to add the exit IP to services that allow Tor Exits
to register to proactively stop abuse emails.
http://www.blocklist.de is one I had to add mine to within the first month.
Is this generally accepted as a good
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:25:40AM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
ON Saturday, August 11. 2012, 18:25:03 Roger Dingledine wrote:
The constraints are:
* 100mbit+ connectivity, though in practice I expect they will spend
most of their time doing far less than that.
* No more than 2 bridges per /24
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:58:54AM +0200, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
You ask volunteers to achieve a funders goal. Those might run a bridge
already, but un-publish it. Less bridges for the rest. They could run
relays and turn them into unpublished bridges. Less relays for anyone.
Running
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Julian Wissmann wrote:
we've got an offer for 10GBit
unmetered@750?, which is kind of sweet spot performance/buck wise and I
guess, that it could handle 8-12 Tor nodes performance wise to satisfy
the pipe. It would be a large number of high performance
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better
load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can
handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay
diversity: on
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:34:14PM +0100, mick wrote:
We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/),
and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to
sponsor 125+ fast exits.
Forgive me, but what do they want in return? (He who pays the
piper...)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:49:34AM -0400, Motoko Kusanagi wrote:
I am very interested in running 100 Mbit (maybe even more) exit nodes at
100$/month, however, a question immediately comes to mind:
When we say 100Mbit exit node, do we imply really unmetered traffic at
100 Mbit, or do we mean
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Andrew Beveridge wrote:
- What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth
do you get for that?
This is a complicated question, because I run a single Tor exit in a VPS on
my company dedicated server. I run a local company
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:29:08PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
Has there been a change in the routing algorithm, or any other network
changes that might explain this drop?
I opened https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5755 for a
related topic that I think will help answer questions
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:02:46PM -0500, Sambuddho Chakravarty wrote:
The section on Performance data in the Tor metrics page
https://metrics.torproject.org/data.html , says that you are recording data
by running Torperf on 'moria', 'torperf' and 'siv'. I know 'moria' is a
exit node. But
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:36:57PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
This application claims to identify bad Tor nodes for the purpose of
excluding them from use:
http://xqz3u5drneuzhaeo.onion/users/badtornodes/
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
In general it is a poor plan to change your
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:35:30PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
New operator of a Tor bridge here. How can I tell that it is being used?
With a regular relay I can look up the stats on TorStatus, or I can see
that there are n current connections. But a bridge won't be published,
and the
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:49:45AM +, Geoff Down wrote:
Hi,
the read/write graphs in my relay's TorStatus.blutmagie.de page have
been broken for some time (flat-lined) but I assumed that was down to
my old software. However, I see that all the relays' pages are the
same. Is this data
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 08:09:31PM +1100, tony wrote:
In the Tor logs for a relay, I get the following message:
Dec 19 19:42:23.662 [notice] Renaming old configuration file to
/etc/tor/torrc.orig.1
Dec 19 19:42:23.662 [warn] Couldn't rename configuration file
/etc/tor/torrc to
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:17:13AM -0400, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 21:30:59 Rick Huebner wrote:
way of using Tor as a client. How can I run the TBB on my system
without interfering with my relay?
TBB supports randomized socks port and control port
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:20:18PM -0400, cmeclax-sazri wrote:
Uploading large files sounds likely to me. Another possibility is that it's
running a hidden download server that a lot of people are downloading from.
Good point -- this could be a hidden service and you're actually seeing
traffic
401 - 454 of 454 matches
Mail list logo
