<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> From: tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org<br>> Subject: tor-relays Digest, Vol 12, Issue 9<br>> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:00:02 +0000<br>> <br>> Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to<br>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> <br>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays<br>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>> tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org<br>> <br>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> tor-relays-owner@lists.torproject.org<br>> <br>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>> than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..."<br>> <br>> <br>> Today's Topics:<br>> <br>> 1. Re: consensus update request (grarpamp)<br>> 2. Re: not speci
fied families (Aurel W.)<br>> 3. Re: not specified families (Tor Relays at brwyatt.net)<br>> 4. Re: not specified families (Damian Johnson)<br>> 5. New authority (Sebastian Urbach)<br>> <br>> <br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:45:51 -0500<br>> From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com><br>> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] consensus update request<br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAD2Ti2-Ti1qv4Pb22JsKmpZXMTWPhSPwGyyLtkewYo5Z-U-rJA@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>> <br>> Maybe this is why my client is taking so long to load<br>> at the moment. At first I thought it was my update to<br>> ossl 100f, but after checking 100e again, it's not. Tor<br>> currently sits in the netstatus consensus and missing<br>> dir auth phases for indefinite tens of minutes b
efore<br>> coming online.<br>> <br>> valid-until 2012-01-09 20:00:00<br>> Mon Jan 9 22:..:.. UTC 2012<br>> <br>> Is this something that's distributable as a piecemeal<br>> flood into the net as each router is validated. Some<br>> sort of client held table so the scale work and<br>> partitioning is done there with their cpu/disk.<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 2<br>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:28:16 +0100<br>> From: "Aurel W." <aurel.w@gmail.com><br>> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] not specified families<br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAAG-S2FCxKctVtpPj08Gpkyt5b6hvqO+T2EzauBfUMk=iZv59A@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>> <br>> > Malicious relays trying to de-anonimize people are not going to use<br>> > MyFamily for obvious reasons, and also they will not choose an obvious<br>> > nic
k sequence like MetallicaFan1, MetallicaFan2,etc<br>> > So it seems to me this option has only theoretical benefit, but in<br>> > practice it's naive.<br>> True, but in theory you also have to consider that nodes could get<br>> compromised and then it is very likely that a whole family is affected<br>> (may be too paranoid for some).<br>> <br>> I also wonder if it gets harder to identify a real threat, of a<br>> malicious attacker operating many nodes, if there are so many other<br>> cases of not-specified families.<br>> <br>> The "MetallicaFan1, MetallicaFan2,.." nodes might not be a problem,<br>> because no one with a malicious attempt would name nodes like that.<br>> But they are an indication, that there might be a bunch of other<br>> nodes, without any such strong sings, but which are also operated by<br>> one single individual. Because obviously, it's a very common mistake<br>> in configuration.<br>> <br>> The
re might be feasible techniques to find suspicious groups of<br>> relays, but with all this non specified families, this would be rather<br>> pointless.<br>> <br>> aurel<br>> <br>> aurel<br>> <br>> On 9 January 2012 23:39, Javier Bassi <javierbassi@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Aurel W. <aurel.w@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> >> Shouldn't this be treated more seriously? There are literally over 100<br>> >> high bandwidth relays, which should specify a family but which don't.<br>> >> If you monitor a client, it is very frequently that circuits are built<br>> >> where two relays are clearly controlled by the same person.<br>> >><br>> >> As a first try I mailed to two contact email addresses, but I haven't<br>> >> got any response.<br>> ><br>> > In the end its the same. Relay operators who are willing to place<br>> > MyFamily in their tor
rc file are not the ones that are going to try to<br>> > identify you.<br>> > Malicious relays trying to de-anonimize people are not going to use<br>> > MyFamily for obvious reasons, and also they will not choose an obvious<br>> > nick sequence like MetallicaFan1, MetallicaFan2,etc<br>> > So it seems to me this option has only theoretical benefit, but in<br>> > practice it's naive.<br>> > Or maybe I'm missing something<br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > tor-relays mailing list<br>> > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 3<br>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:21:20 +0000<br>> From: "Tor Relays at brwyatt.net" <tor@brwyatt.net><br>> To: <tor-relays@lists.torproject.org><br>> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] not specified famili
es<br>> Message-ID: <802693728989435@jngomktg.net><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>> <br>> Wouldn't it be possible to code the Tor clients to not build circuits<br>> using relays in the same /24 or with "similar" names? While that wouldn't<br>> fix ALL possible attack scenarios, that could certainly help, and help<br>> against accidental (or malicious) misconfigured nodes.<br>> <br>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:28:16 +0100, "Aurel W." <aurel.w@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> >> Malicious relays trying to de-anonimize people are not going to use<br>> >> MyFamily for obvious reasons, and also they will not choose an obvious<br>> >> nick sequence like MetallicaFan1, MetallicaFan2,etc<br>> >> So it seems to me this option has only theoretical benefit, but in<br>> >> practice it's naive.<br>> > True, but in theory you also have to consider that nodes could get<br>> > compromised and
then it is very likely that a whole family is affected<br>> > (may be too paranoid for some).<br>> > <br>> > I also wonder if it gets harder to identify a real threat, of a<br>> > malicious attacker operating many nodes, if there are so many other<br>> > cases of not-specified families.<br>> > <br>> > The "MetallicaFan1, MetallicaFan2,.." nodes might not be a problem,<br>> > because no one with a malicious attempt would name nodes like that.<br>> > But they are an indication, that there might be a bunch of other<br>> > nodes, without any such strong sings, but which are also operated by<br>> > one single individual. Because obviously, it's a very common mistake<br>> > in configuration.<br>> > <br>> > There might be feasible techniques to find suspicious groups of<br>> > relays, but with all this non specified families, this would be rather<br>> > pointless.<br>> > <br>> &
gt; aurel<br>> > <br>> > aurel<br>> > <br>> > On 9 January 2012 23:39, Javier Bassi <javierbassi@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Aurel W. <aurel.w@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> >>> Shouldn't this be treated more seriously? There are literally over 100<br>> >>> high bandwidth relays, which should specify a family but which don't.<br>> >>> If you monitor a client, it is very frequently that circuits are built<br>> >>> where two relays are clearly controlled by the same person.<br>> >>><br>> >>> As a first try I mailed to two contact email addresses, but I haven't<br>> >>> got any response.<br>> >><br>> >> In the end its the same. Relay operators who are willing to place<br>> >> MyFamily in their torrc file are not the ones that are going to try to<br>> >> identify you.<br>> >> Malicious
relays trying to de-anonimize people are not going to use<br>> >> MyFamily for obvious reasons, and also they will not choose an obvious<br>> >> nick sequence like MetallicaFan1, MetallicaFan2,etc<br>> >> So it seems to me this option has only theoretical benefit, but in<br>> >> practice it's naive.<br>> >> Or maybe I'm missing something<br>> >> _______________________________________________<br>> >> tor-relays mailing list<br>> >> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays<br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > tor-relays mailing list<br>> > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 4<br>> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:00:59 -0800<br>>
From: Damian Johnson <atagar1@gmail.com><br>> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] not specified families<br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAJdkzEOp711+5EOscFguTbS3DUDdVi3tEaPOOD3UbUGXtKhihw@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>> <br>> > Wouldn't it be possible to code the Tor clients to not build circuits<br>> > using relays in the same /24 or with "similar" names?<br>> <br>> Tor already avoids using multiple relays in a given /16 subnet.<br>> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/path-spec.txt#l184<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 5<br>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:04:42 +0100<br>> From: Sebastian Urbach <sebastian@urbach.org><br>> To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> Subject: [tor-relays] New authority<br>> Message-ID: <20120110040444.AC7731006006A@ccc-hanau.de><br>> Conten
t-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"<br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> freedompenguin v3 orport=9001 AC0AF18E61A3660B1F3BAC9FF9DF061D9E446735<br>> <br>> May someone add the data to the add_default_trusted_dirservers()<br>> function in config.c, using the syntax "v3ident=<fingerprint>".<br>> <br>> Thanks.<br>> <br>> Btw. i respond pretty fast to server / network issues ;-)<br>> <br>> -- <br>> Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Yours sincerely<br>> <br>> Sebastian Urbach<br>> <br>> --------------------------------------------------------<br>> Religion is something left over from the infancy of<br>> our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt<br>> reason and science as our guidelines.<br>> --------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970),<br>> British philosopher, logician, mathematician,<br>> historian, and social critic.<br>> ----------
---- next part --------------<br>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>> Name: signature.asc<br>> Type: application/pgp-signature<br>> Size: 836 bytes<br>> Desc: not available<br>> URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20120110/f3ea5e96/attachment-0001.pgp><br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> tor-relays mailing list<br>> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org<br>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays<br>> <br>> <br>> End of tor-relays Digest, Vol 12, Issue 9<br>> *****************************************<br></div> </div></body>
</html>