Hello all, I'm April, an activist at EFF. I'm trying to reactivate this list a bit and see who on here is still in a university and is currently running a relay or an exit. Not only am I interested in writing about it for EFF, but I know some new folks have joined that are struggling to try and start one on their campus. I'd also like to start pointing interested students to this list who want to try. The Tor Challenge, which ended last week, had a special section for Tor on Campus: https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/tor-on-campus.html It'd be great if any folks could chime in and let me know about relays or exits on campus. Also let us know if you're currently in process and facing road blocks. We helped one group of students in Iowa last year get past some troubling free speech hurdles last year. The student group was banned from forming and from even having a discussion about Tor. Now they are in conversations with campus IT about setting up a relay. It's awesome. Here's the story: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/10/digital-freedom-groups-road-r... That's all for now! Thanks much, April -- April Glaser Electronic Frontier Foundation 415-436-9333 x154 support our work: https://eff.org/join
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM, April Glaser <april@eff.org> wrote:
Also let us know if you're currently in process and facing road blocks.
One conversation with parties to an edu yielded that they had no real working process for evaluating and accepting tertiary projects. For example, the process did exist for faculty actively engaged in bonafide research pursuant to paper production, licensing, etc. And for students actively enrolled in a class which graded academic projects for which writing code or learning sysadmin might be their project. However if you were merely a student in the dorms, a janitor, office or IT worker, faculty, or anyone else simply wishing to run a node outside of the above business/academic progress, even if doing so would earn public recognition and carry little risk or cost... they had no particular process in place to execute on that, so it didn't happen. And without process, examples of existing tertiary (arbitrary) projects were denied as replication models for yours. EFF/TOR might be able to assist those in that situation by providing a page on forming a framework, and what that framework might look like.
One conversation with parties to an edu yielded that they had no real working process for evaluating and accepting tertiary projects.
<snip>
they had no particular process in place to execute on that, so it didn't happen. And without process, examples of existing tertiary (arbitrary) projects were denied as replication models for yours.
A group of friends and I have been working with the IT department at our university to get an exit set up, and one of the ways we've gotten around this problem is by forming an official, recognized student organization. Student orgs (at least here) are able to request resources from the university (e.g. rackspace/bandwidth), funds from the Government of the Student Body, etc., so there's a somewhat established channel to go through the process. The IT folks here have actually been pretty great so far (if a little slow moving), although we have some personal connections with them so it makes things a bit smoother. This is just our personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt, but we've found there are 3 major things the IT bureaucracy wants to see, and in conversations with them it's come up that individuals trying to do things like run a Tor node in the past have been shut down for lacking (at least) one of these things: 1) Accountability - they want someone/some group who will step up to handle things like DMCA requests, abuse complaints, etc. Individual undergrads don't cut it here because they aren't around long-term and tend to lose interest after a while anyway. Ideally, a long-term university employee should put their name down as a contact/responsible party (even if it's not actually them responding to issues), but perhaps a student group could step up here too if they're firmly established. 2) Clear Admin/Security Policy - they want a well-defined security policy for maintaining the box long-term and limiting abuse potential. Less so, it seems, to actually verify that the box is secure, and more to just show various administrators to say "hey, we made sure they followed best practices - if something happens it's not our fault." Additionally, they want to ensure the university isn't somehow made liable for the activities of Tor users (e.g. by providing access to people around the world to journal subscriptions that are only supposed to be available to students). 3) Precedent - one of the most important issues they've brought up. They want to see that an exit node has been run successfully at other universities with minimal headaches. They're most interested in the setups that have worked for others, specific exit-policies and abuse-response procedures primarily. This all basically boils down to "Don't make the IT people's lives more difficult." A couple resources that I think could really help/streamline this process for other students in the future are: (A) A list of currently active exits at universities, filterable by country at least (laws/regulations are different). It would be really great to have some sections here for each university listing like: the exit policy (or policies), the way they get around problems like journal subscriptions, how they handle abuse complaints, how long the exit has been running, etc. (B) Some suggestions for helping students/student groups find solutions to common problems. Not sure how to limit access to subscription databases? Try getting an IP outside the university's netblock or making friends with a librarian who can make sure you always have an updated subscription list. IT people worried about a flood of abuse complaints? Here's an exit policy that's been shown to minimize problems. I know some/most of this information exists in various places already, but it would be extremely helpful to aggregate it in a nice format for both students working to setup nodes as well as a place to point curious/skeptical administrators. This: https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/tor-on-campus.html is somewhat close to what I'm describing, but, critically, it's lacking a searchable/filterable listing of current university exits. And while it does have a "Tactics for Addressing Potential Concerns" section that lists possible *solutions* to common problems, I think it might be good to have like a "Roadblocks" section or something that lists potential *problems* themselves. A lot of the information is there, it seems, just not a clear mapping of problem -> solution. Nik On 09/19/2014 06:26 PM, grarpamp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM, April Glaser <april@eff.org> wrote:
Also let us know if you're currently in process and facing road blocks.
One conversation with parties to an edu yielded that they had no real working process for evaluating and accepting tertiary projects.
For example, the process did exist for faculty actively engaged in bonafide research pursuant to paper production, licensing, etc. And for students actively enrolled in a class which graded academic projects for which writing code or learning sysadmin might be their project.
However if you were merely a student in the dorms, a janitor, office or IT worker, faculty, or anyone else simply wishing to run a node outside of the above business/academic progress, even if doing so would earn public recognition and carry little risk or cost...
they had no particular process in place to execute on that, so it didn't happen. And without process, examples of existing tertiary (arbitrary) projects were denied as replication models for yours.
EFF/TOR might be able to assist those in that situation by providing a page on forming a framework, and what that framework might look like. _______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie...
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0500, Nik wrote:
3) Precedent - one of the most important issues they've brought up. They want to see that an exit node has been run successfully at other universities with minimal headaches. They're most interested in the setups that have worked for others, specific exit-policies and abuse-response procedures primarily.
Yes, this is definitely useful. I run an exit node at the University of Waterloo, using the standard reduced exit policy. We get about one complaint every 3-6 weeks, almost always auto-generated with no human at the other end to respond to. The main sticking point when switching from a middle to an exit node was in obtaining a non-university IP address, since apparently journal publishers just whitelist the university's IP block for subscription purposes, and we wouldn't want people coming out of our exit node to get access to those subscriptions. (Worse, no one at the university had a list of those subscriptions that we could just block with an exit policy. YMMV.) -- Ian Goldberg Associate Professor and University Research Chair Cheriton School of Computer Science University of Waterloo
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:57:05AM -0400, Ian Goldberg wrote:
The main sticking point when switching from a middle to an exit node was in obtaining a non-university IP address, since apparently journal publishers just whitelist the university's IP block for subscription purposes, and we wouldn't want people coming out of our exit node to get access to those subscriptions. (Worse, no one at the university had a list of those subscriptions that we could just block with an exit policy. YMMV.)
There are two technical issues in Tor that make it hard to just pop in a list, even if you can manage to get one. First, if your list is many thousands of lines, like the one that the EecsUmichExit1 tried to use, then we'll end up with log lines at the directory authorities like Aug 27 21:22:10.365 [notice] Somebody attempted to publish a router descriptor 'EecsUmichExit1' (source: 141.212.108.13) with size 94389. Either this is an attack, or the MAX_DESCRIPTOR_UPLOAD_SIZE (20000) constant is too low. and then the relay will go unused. Second, with the move to microdescriptors, clients only get a "summary" exit policy -- it lists ports but not addresses. So if you allow exiting to port 80 but actually secretly you don't allow a lot of common destinations, then clients won't be able to predict which ones you'll refuse. Things will still work, meaning the client will ask you to exit to that destination, you'll send back an end cell with reason exitpolicy, and they'll try a different exit. But it will still slow things down for them. So in summary, it is much better to put your exit relay on an IP address that isn't implicitly trusted by a bunch of places you don't want trust from. --Roger
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0500, Nik wrote:
(A) A list of currently active exits at universities, filterable by country at least (laws/regulations are different).
It would be really great to have some sections here for each university listing like: the exit policy (or policies), the way they get around problems like journal subscriptions, how they handle abuse complaints, how long the exit has been running, etc.
Check out https://compass.torproject.org/ Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System). You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above. Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice -- they've gotten enough buy-in locally to run the relay, but they don't really want CNN to show up wanting to interview their dean about why she is endorsing Tor. I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays might help answer some of the concerns I get from people (even otherwise smart Tor fans) who say that the only people who can afford to run stable exit relays are people who are collaborating with the authorities to undermine Tor. --Roger
Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu> wrote Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:33:58 -0400: | Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators | don't really want publicity about their choice -- they've gotten enough | buy-in locally to run the relay, but they don't really want CNN to show | up wanting to interview their dean about why she is endorsing Tor. | | I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay | operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace | to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to | kill, putting a human face on exit relays might help answer some of the | concerns I get from people (even otherwise smart Tor fans) who say that | the only people who can afford to run stable exit relays are people who | are collaborating with the authorities to undermine Tor. With my DFRI [1] hat on, I'd like to volunteer to present an alternative view on how to run exit traffic in a sustainable manner, should someone decide to pick up this idea. This is unrelated to relays at universities and campuses but still a very good idea IMO. [1] https://www.dfri.se/dfri/?lang=en
On 09/20/2014 03:33 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Check out https://compass.torproject.org/
Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System).
You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above.
This is great, thank you. Very helpful. I suppose this:
Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice
is a pretty compelling reason *not* to explicitly highlight exits run at universities (at least not without the operator's consent). Maybe something opt-in would be possible? Although it might be sort of pointless if only a couple university people/groups wanted to publicize that they run an exit.
I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays
I'm extremely interested in ways to encourage more open conversations about exits, "normalize" the whole process a bit, and, as you say, "[put] a human face on exit relays." I think this is really important. It's amazing, and very frustrating, how much FUD, mystique, and just outright wrong information about Tor in general and exits specifically circulates among many Com Sci/engineering students (and even some professors). Nik On 09/20/2014 03:33 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0500, Nik wrote:
(A) A list of currently active exits at universities, filterable by country at least (laws/regulations are different).
It would be really great to have some sections here for each university listing like: the exit policy (or policies), the way they get around problems like journal subscriptions, how they handle abuse complaints, how long the exit has been running, etc.
Check out https://compass.torproject.org/
Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System).
You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above.
Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice -- they've gotten enough buy-in locally to run the relay, but they don't really want CNN to show up wanting to interview their dean about why she is endorsing Tor.
I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays might help answer some of the concerns I get from people (even otherwise smart Tor fans) who say that the only people who can afford to run stable exit relays are people who are collaborating with the authorities to undermine Tor.
--Roger
_______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie...
On 9/22/14 11:25 AM, Nik wrote:
On 09/20/2014 03:33 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Check out https://compass.torproject.org/
Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System).
You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above. This is great, thank you. Very helpful.
I suppose this:
Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice is a pretty compelling reason *not* to explicitly highlight exits run at universities (at least not without the operator's consent). Maybe something opt-in would be possible? Although it might be sort of pointless if only a couple university people/groups wanted to publicize that they run an exit.
I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays
I'm extremely interested in ways to encourage more open conversations about exits, "normalize" the whole process a bit, and, as you say, "[put] a human face on exit relays." I think this is really important.
It's amazing, and very frustrating, how much FUD, mystique, and just outright wrong information about Tor in general and exits specifically circulates among many Com Sci/engineering students (and even some professors).
Nik
On 09/20/2014 03:33 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0500, Nik wrote:
(A) A list of currently active exits at universities, filterable by country at least (laws/regulations are different).
It would be really great to have some sections here for each university listing like: the exit policy (or policies), the way they get around problems like journal subscriptions, how they handle abuse complaints, how long the exit has been running, etc. Check out https://compass.torproject.org/
Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System).
You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above.
Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice -- they've gotten enough buy-in locally to run the relay, but they don't really want CNN to show up wanting to interview their dean about why she is endorsing Tor.
I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays might help answer some of the concerns I get from people (even otherwise smart Tor fans) who say that the only people who can afford to run stable exit relays are people who are collaborating with the authorities to undermine Tor.
--Roger
This is an interesting idea. Anyone else have any ideas of ways to demystify for students and uni administrators (and everyone, really!)? Maybe a monthly instead of a weekly series might be more likely.
_______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie...
_______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie...
-- April Glaser Electronic Frontier Foundation 415-436-9333 x154 support our work: https://eff.org/join
Another related way around this issue that I don’t think has been mentioned so far is running middle relays. My university gives us unrestricted internet access and public IP’s in the student residential housing, so last year I experimented with running an exit relay in my dorm room. Despite the fairly restrictive exit policy, it still got blocked from the network after a few months because of abuse complaints received by the university. I talked to the IT people and got it back online, but when the same thing happened again after a few months I decided to switch to running as a middle relay. Obviously exit relays are in more critical demand than middle relays, but middle relay traffic is completely opaque to network administrators and middle relays should never receive abuse complaints. This makes them an attractive option since they don’t require the approval of any university employees and they pose no credible threat to the university or its network. I’ve successfully convinced a number of my friends to run middle relays in their dorm rooms and none of them have experienced any problems so far. Finally, getting an middle relay up and running with the official support of the university might be a good way to ease in to the subject and start to demystify Tor. It’s a fairly harmless proposal, and it shouldn’t be hard to convince the IT people to support it. Then, once everyone is comfortable with the middle relay and it’s had no issues for some time, the idea of switching to an exit relay can be proposed. Cheers! Alex Ryan Caltech Class of 2017
On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:53 PM, April Glaser <april@eff.org> wrote:
On 9/22/14 11:25 AM, Nik wrote:
On 09/20/2014 03:33 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Check out https://compass.torproject.org/ <https://compass.torproject.org/>
Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System).
You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above. This is great, thank you. Very helpful.
I suppose this:
Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice is a pretty compelling reason *not* to explicitly highlight exits run at universities (at least not without the operator's consent). Maybe something opt-in would be possible? Although it might be sort of pointless if only a couple university people/groups wanted to publicize that they run an exit.
I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays
I'm extremely interested in ways to encourage more open conversations about exits, "normalize" the whole process a bit, and, as you say, "[put] a human face on exit relays." I think this is really important.
It's amazing, and very frustrating, how much FUD, mystique, and just outright wrong information about Tor in general and exits specifically circulates among many Com Sci/engineering students (and even some professors).
Nik
On 09/20/2014 03:33 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0500, Nik wrote:
(A) A list of currently active exits at universities, filterable by country at least (laws/regulations are different).
It would be really great to have some sections here for each university listing like: the exit policy (or policies), the way they get around problems like journal subscriptions, how they handle abuse complaints, how long the exit has been running, etc. Check out https://compass.torproject.org/ <https://compass.torproject.org/>
Click on 'select only relays suitable for exit position' and then in the Country box put in United States and Canada. Then ask for 100 results. Then click submit, and scroll down, and look on the right-most column (Autonomous System).
You can click on the link in the Fingerprint column to see some of the details you list above.
Part of the general problem though is that many Tor exit relay operators don't really want publicity about their choice -- they've gotten enough buy-in locally to run the relay, but they don't really want CNN to show up wanting to interview their dean about why she is endorsing Tor.
I wonder if somebody should start doing a "highlight a Tor exit relay operator" weekly column or something, to make it more commonplace to admit that you're running an exit relay? As an additional bird to kill, putting a human face on exit relays might help answer some of the concerns I get from people (even otherwise smart Tor fans) who say that the only people who can afford to run stable exit relays are people who are collaborating with the authorities to undermine Tor.
--Roger
This is an interesting idea. Anyone else have any ideas of ways to demystify for students and uni administrators (and everyone, really!)?
Maybe a monthly instead of a weekly series might be more likely.
_______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie... <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universities>
_______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie... <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universities>
-- April Glaser Electronic Frontier Foundation 415-436-9333 x154 support our work: https://eff.org/join <https://eff.org/join>
_______________________________________________ tor-relays-universities mailing list tor-relays-universities@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays-universitie...
Nik <nskinkel@iastate.edu> wrote Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:41:24 -0500: | This is just our personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt, | but we've found there are 3 major things the IT bureaucracy wants to | see, and in conversations with them it's come up that individuals trying | to do things like run a Tor node in the past have been shut down for | lacking (at least) one of these things: As someone working with network operations people in several national research and education networks I'd like to give support to the description of your three points and especially the summary | This all basically boils down to "Don't make the IT people's lives | more difficult." which is what most of this is about. This is hard to achieve without them trusting you, so one way might be to start out with something not too complicated/risky and then move towards more challenging things. Regarding risk, I've found more than one organisation optimising less on minimising cost and more on avoiding bad press. Also, finding out what the ones dealing with abuse issues (the IRT/CERT) value and fear is often well spent energy.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 03:13:45PM -0700, April Glaser wrote:
It'd be great if any folks could chime in and let me know about relays or exits on campus. Also let us know if you're currently in process and facing road blocks.
I'll share our experience. Since about three years, we are running a relay at Karlstad University in Sweden. We have been trying to turn it into an exit relay and overcame the following roadblocks. - We got a new /29 netblock from our ISP for our relay. This is to avoid the scientific database issues, Ian pointed out. While our library did have a list with all our subscriptions, updating that list would have been a lot of trouble they wanted to avoid. - We were working closely with our IT department (which liked the idea of running a relay after talking to us) and our ISP. Our relay's whois record points to our university's abuse email address but the agreement is that complaints can also be forwarded to a mailing list we set up for dealing with Tor-specific complaints. - We also talked to several other parties at our university including our department head, the marketing department, the lawyer, and the head of the university. This was probably the most difficult part. - In case of issues with law enforcement, we clearly marked the Tor relay in our department's server room. Should the relay ever get seized, we hope that only the relay is taken and no other, unrelated machines. - We registered a new domain and configured our reverse DNS record in a way that it is obvious that it runs a Tor relay, i.e., relay-194.tor-exit-kau.se. Unfortunately, one instance in the hierarchy is still blocking the process because of concerns regarding child pornography. Cheers, Philipp
Hi everyone, I can also share our experience on running an exit node since March 2011 at Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany (see https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/7935072EFBD8D5BBC30653E0F1016C2A3274E4E... for details). I agree with all points mentioned by Philipp, maybe this can lead to some kind of guide for running exit nodes. On 20 Sep 2014, at 13:28, Philipp Winter <phw@nymity.ch> wrote:
- We got a new /29 netblock from our ISP for our relay. This is to avoid the scientific database issues, Ian pointed out. While our library did have a list with all our subscriptions, updating that list would have been a lot of trouble they wanted to avoid.
Same for us, we obtained 195.37.190.64/27 for running our node and other research projects we are working on. The reasons are similar to the ones mentioned by Philipp and Ian.
- We were working closely with our IT department (which liked the idea of running a relay after talking to us) and our ISP. Our relay's whois record points to our university's abuse email address but the agreement is that complaints can also be forwarded to a mailing list we set up for dealing with Tor-specific complaints.
We have a similar setup, all abuse requests go to a mailing list or directly to me. While I received about 2-3 complaints per quarter at the beginning, I did not receive a single complaint about the node in the last 12 months. One request of our IT department was to prevent access to the university network via Tor, mainly since there are several other systems besides the journal sites that are only reachable with an IP address of the university. Thus our exit policy also includes a reject of 134.147.0.0/16:*. We also rate limit the connection a bit such that we do not generate too much traffic per day.
- In case of issues with law enforcement, we clearly marked the Tor relay in our department's server room. Should the relay ever get seized, we hope that only the relay is taken and no other, unrelated machines.
We also use this as a precaution, but as far as I know, seizing of Tor nodes did not happen in Germany very often in the past few years (the situation has changed after a smaller awareness campaign).
- We registered a new domain and configured our reverse DNS record in a way that it is obvious that it runs a Tor relay, i.e., relay-194.tor-exit-kau.se.
$ host 195.37.190.67 67.190.37.195.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer tor-exit.de. Cheers, Thorsten
participants (9)
-
Alex Ryan -
April Glaser -
grarpamp -
Ian Goldberg -
Linus Nordberg -
Nik -
Philipp Winter -
Roger Dingledine -
Thorsten Holz