[tor-relays] Warn:

I got the below message on my relay #2. It's been in operation for a year and a half. First time I've ever got one of these. 0re7:26:40 [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a

[tor-relays] [warn] Received a bad CERTS cell: Link certificate does not match TLS certificate

Hi all I found a message in the logs: Apr 16 15:07:46.000 [warn] Received a bad CERTS cell: Link certificate does not match TLS certificate -- Cheers Felix pgpz8Afm4HlbY.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ tor-relays mailing list

[tor-relays] warn message in notices .log after reinstallation of the relay (and restore of torrc and "keys" folder)

Hi, I had issues with my bridge who is running on a Raspberry pi 3+ so i've decided to completely reinstall it. First i saved my torrc file and my "keys" folder from /var/lib/tor. First thing i did after a clean install of the server was to copy and paste my torrc file in /etc/tor/ and the

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests

Hi, *UPDATE** I'm still seeing these warning messages but in a lower frequency: Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more restricted exit policy. [1077 similar message(s) suppressed in

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests

Hi, Running for more than a week the alpha version 0.3.3.2 (git-7b1d356bdb76607d) the issue seems to be resolved. Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 7 days 11:59 hours, with 19157 circuits open. I've sent 2372.16 GB and received 2372.27 GB. Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests

Roger Dingledine: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:13:00PM +, Vasilis wrote: >> I see a number of warning log messages on a dedicated server: >> [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation >> requests! > > You get that warning message when there are too many create

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:13:00PM +, Vasilis wrote: > I see a number of warning log messages on a dedicated server: > [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation > requests! You get that warning message when there are too many create cells coming in, and your relay

[tor-relays] [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests

Hi, I see a number of warning log messages on a dedicated server: [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more restricted exit policy. [27615 similar message(s) suppressed in last

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring.

> On 1 Aug 2017, at 08:17, Ybslik wrote: > ... > > Me - 9D60A484CFBDB5B890FB5B18941494734584BA17 > > ... > Jul 31 20:37:34.000 [notice] Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 > connections, 0 v2 connections, 3 v3 connections, and 908239 v4

[tor-relays] [warn] circuit_mark_for_close under (Linux 4.4.0-21-generic) Tor 0.2.9.10

[warn] circuit_mark_for_close_(): Bug: Duplicate call to circuit_mark_for_close at ../src/or/onion.c:238 (first at ../src/or/command.c:579) (on Tor 0.2.9.10 ) Can this warning be neglected - I thought it is a BSD and not a Linux issue? Got nearly a hundred of them today - all with the same time

Re: [tor-relays] "[warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort" under BSD

https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/20711 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] "[warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort" under BSD

pa011: > I am running (FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p2) Tor 0.2.8.11 > getting following warnings while Self-testing indicates that DirPort is > reachable from the outside? > > Can these warnings be ignored, while Tor is running properly afterwards ? > Dec 24 13:21:57.000 [warn] Cannot make an

[tor-relays] "[warn] Cannot make an outgoing connection without a DirPort" under BSD

I am running (FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p2) Tor 0.2.8.11 getting following warnings while Self-testing indicates that DirPort is reachable from the outside? Can these warnings be ignored, while Tor is running properly afterwards ? Merry Christmas! Paul Dec 24 13:20:57.000 [notice] Bootstrapped

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Remote server sent bogus reason code 65021

Looks like this is solved and belonged to not open ports Sorry for the hassle Paul Am 16.08.2016 um 18:34 schrieb pa011: > Just established a new Exit with two instances on (Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64) ,Tor > 0.2.8.6 > > On the second instance I get these warnings: > > [WARN] Remote server sent

[tor-relays] [WARN] Remote server sent bogus reason code 65021

Just established a new Exit with two instances on (Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64) ,Tor 0.2.8.6 On the second instance I get these warnings: [WARN] Remote server sent bogus reason code 65021 [21 duplicates hidden] [WARN] Remote server sent bogus reason code 65023 [95 duplicates hidden] [NOTICE] Have

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed

Hello, This warn is known for some time. It's safe to ignore this warning no matter how many times you see it in your log file, IIRC it's a libevent issue when DNS resolvers are idle. All my exit relays have multiple such lines in the log files constantly. It's highly important to run your own

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed

It's been mentioned here once before, but you shouldn't be using Google's DNS servers as they see almost all of the Tor network traffic. My solution was to run a local DNS resolver (unbound in my case) and to use at least 2 DNS servers from the Open NIC project:

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/19/2016 09:59 PM, pa011 wrote: > Or are there better working solutions? I do have only 127.0.0.1 set in my resolv.conf and do use dnsmasq together with strict DNSSEC. works like a charm and DNSSEC is really a good thing IMO. The

[tor-relays] [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed

Jun 19 20:24:38.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Jun 19 20:24:38.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back up I do get this in my logs on an exit (Tor 0.2.7.6) several times every hour. The /etc/resolv.conf contains # Generated by SolusVM nameserver 8.8.8.8

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

On Sunday 21 February 2016 12:02:49 nusenu wrote: > > since I upgraded the torland relay from 2.6.7 to 0.2.7.6 I get the > > following warnings: > > > > 09:20:30 [WARN] Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please > > read doc/TUNING for guidance. [101144347 similar message(s)

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

On Sunday 21 February 2016 12:57:52 Julien ROBIN wrote: > When I had 2 tor clients running (the second launched manually by a user > named "tor2"), I modified the "limits.conf" file, adding those 2 lines at > the end : > > #* softcore0 > #roothardcore

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

On Sunday 21 February 2016 11:56:37 Jonas Bergler wrote: > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/doc/TUNING Thanks Jonas for the link. file descriptors should be set to ulimit -n 65535 in the tor startup script. I thought that would work. But checking /proc/PID/limits I saw that file

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

> since I upgraded the torland relay from 2.6.7 to 0.2.7.6 I get the following > warnings: > > 09:20:30 [WARN] Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read > doc/TUNING for guidance. [101144347 similar message(s) suppressed in last > 21600 seconds] Are you using tor packages

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

is launched by /etc/init.d/tor start may be this haven't to be done manually. That's all I know about it, hope it will help you to find and correct the problem ! Best regards, Julien ROBIN - Mail original - De: tor-ad...@torland.me À: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Envoyé: Dimanche 21 Février 2016 12

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/doc/TUNING On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:39 AM, wrote: > Hi all, > > since I upgraded the torland relay from 2.6.7 to 0.2.7.6 I get the > following > warnings: > > 09:20:30 [WARN] Failing because we have 4063 connections already.

[tor-relays] [WARN]Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance

Hi all, since I upgraded the torland relay from 2.6.7 to 0.2.7.6 I get the following warnings: 09:20:30 [WARN] Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance. [101144347 similar message(s) suppressed in last 21600 seconds] Google only spits out

[tor-relays] [warn] Bad password or authentication cookie on controller.

Hello, yesterday I got within a minute three times the above warning in my log file on Tor 0.2.7.6. Could somebody please explain to me what it means and how to solve? Is there a source where I can possibly find answers on this and other warnings? Thanks in advance Paul

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] Bad password or authentication cookie on controller.

> On 22 Jan 2016, at 08:33, pa011 wrote: > > Hello, > > yesterday I got within a minute three times the above warning in my log > file on Tor 0.2.7.6. > > Could somebody please explain to me what it means and how to solve? Someone tried to login to your control port with the

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] Content-Length is less than zero; it looks like someone is trying to crash us

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:38:02AM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote: Yes, I got the same thing recently. A burst of 56 of these log entries over a 3-minute period on July 21st. Seen with v0.2.6.10. Somebody shaking doorknobs. If your DirPorts are on port 80, it might even just be a random bad

[tor-relays] [warn] Content-Length is less than zero; it looks like someone is trying to crash us

-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Charset: utf-8 Version: GnuPG v2 hQQOA9vCYl42+L0WEBAArg1D4faK3HdxN9Zqql89LPgFAdUVfIuyS+HdMpeHYGcU bHuEAiFA20YWtXTqvEQZ3T1FFCN5tX3psIJdfSUmvIEo8Q8vvK18g2wAiyXUp+aG Rvm4KLfjVIYVNTO4jc3t9rFiaIhE1OtF9IY41Cr9UPZ4ICkg2Yszvy49F9FVPrjY

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] Content-Length is less than zero; it looks like someone is trying to crash us

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/23/2015 03:38 PM, Steve Snyder wrote: Seen with v0.2.6.10. yep, 0.2.6.10 here too - -- Toralf, pgp key: 872AE508 0076E94E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlWxNL0ACgkQxOrN3gB26U4eBQEAh8Vdxp1dxod0hYpmiCIEPJkV

[tor-relays] [warn] Problem bootstrapping. Stuck at 10%: Finishing handshake with directory server.

This morning I rebooted my relay after some patching. I was running 2.6.7 on Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS from. The server is always a bit slow rebooting but when it came back up always check the Tor relay and now I see an excessive amount of these errors: May 29 12:20:36.000 [warn] Problem bootstrapping.

[tor-relays] [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit.

Hi people .. i yesterday started IPV6 but now i see in log following messages periodically part of my torrc below. I only add ipv6 lines. Any idea ? or its normal ? Thanks Cmar ORPort 37.157.192.208:443 ORPort [2a02:2b88:2:1::3a62:1]:9050 ## If you want to listen on a port other than the

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit.

Any idea ? or its normal ? I'm not sure, but I also saw this for the first time today after enabling ipv6 on a relay last week. A quick look at the relevant code doesn't shed any immediate light on what would be causing this (the triggering request is to establish a rendezvous point with a

[tor-relays] [warn] No unused circIDs found on channel without wide circID support

Hi, since upgrading torland to 0.2.5.8-rc I see the below warnings. Is this something to worry about? Regards, torland -- Sep 28 16:07:24.000 [warn] No unused circIDs found on channel without wide circID support, with 0

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] No unused circIDs found on channel without wide circID support

reply-to: tor-dev On Monday 29 September 2014 15:00:29 tor-admin wrote: since upgrading torland to 0.2.5.8-rc I see the below warnings. Is this something to worry about? IMHO this might be due to a programming error in the circuit ID selection code or possibly indicate a DoS attack.

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] crypto error while checking RSA signature: padding check failed

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: Occasionally (such as just now) I have seen these two errors in arm: │ 13:21:25 [WARN] crypto error while checking RSA signature: padding check failed (in rsa routines:- │ RSA_EAY_PUBLIC_DECRYPT) │ 13:21:25

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/21/14, grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote: something I did to ntpd.conf (probably adding servers above the default debian entries which are: server 0.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst The order doesn't matter. Though if DNS is not up before ntpd on boot, specified poolnames won't resolve and I

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/20/14, grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote: Since you say it repeats you oppurtunity to check the system clock first: - configure tor to syslog added - send an ntpdate -q pool to syslog every 5min, remove when solved. Do you mean disable ntpd daemon, and run this instead? Sounds easy

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/20/14, grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote: - configure tor to syslog added 'Log syslog' The example in etc/torrc is 'Log notice syslog' which I uncommented. - send an ntpdate -q pool to syslog every 5min, remove when solved. Do you mean disable ntpd daemon, and run this instead?

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/19/14, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: On 2/19/14, Alexander Makarov ice.turbul...@gmail.com wrote: Could you show the log? Current and previous tor logs attached. What is also interesting is IP address seems to change rather frequently from the ISP (iiNet in this case - a

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

Since you say it repeats you oppurtunity to check the system clock first: - configure tor to syslog - send an ntpdate -q pool to syslog every 5min, remove when solved. - send *.* to /var/log/all and see what you find around where the date lines start to slide or jump past each other. Graph it

[tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. I tried running openntpd as well as ntp packages (debian), and both display the same problem - once or twice a day I get this jump in

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Maybe problem with hardware clocks? On 18.02.2014 22:02, Zenaan Harkness wrote: My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. I

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/18/14, Alexander Makarov ice.turbul...@gmail.com wrote: On 18.02.2014 22:02, Zenaan Harkness wrote: My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. I tried running openntpd

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

I was told by a network engineer that recently there have been attacks targetting ntp. It may or may not have anything to do with your relay though. Robert My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

Are you on a virtual machine? Do you control the VM host? If not, it could be that your host is migrating your VM, or not scheduling it properly, which causes time drifts inside the VM. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: My tor logs (running on Debian)

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Could you show the log? Can you rebuild you kernel with debug option and check what kernel events have the same timestamps On 18.02.2014 23:39, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 2/18/14, Alexander Makarov ice.turbul...@gmail.com wrote: On 18.02.2014 22:02,

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:02:21 +, Zenaan Harkness wrote: My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. It may just be that your machine completely hangs for a while

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/18/14, D.S. Ljungmark spi...@aanstoot.se wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. I

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

On 2/19/14, Alexander Makarov ice.turbul...@gmail.com wrote: On 18.02.2014 23:39, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 2/18/14, Alexander Makarov ice.turbul...@gmail.com wrote: On 18.02.2014 22:02, Zenaan Harkness wrote: My tor logs (running on Debian) are showing this warning: [WARN] Your system clock

Re: [tor-relays] [WARN] Your system clock just jumped 100 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yea, maybe you will find something strange or regular On 19.02.2014 10:59, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 2/19/14, Alexander Makarov ice.turbul...@gmail.com wrote: On 18.02.2014 23:39, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 2/18/14, Alexander Makarov

Re: [tor-relays] [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Samuel Walker sam...@samuelwalker.me.uk wrote: Hi, I've started receiving this message on my relay (non-exit, non-hidden-serivce) [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit. I've had a look in the bug tracker, and it looks like it was

[tor-relays] [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit.

Hi, I've started receiving this message on my relay (non-exit, non-hidden-serivce) [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR or non-edge circuit. I've had a look in the bug tracker, and it looks like it was previously noted under 4171, with the cause being 4641. Both now fixed. Should I