tor-relays July 2012

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

49 participants
24 discussions

Negative impact of MaxOnionsPending 250?
by Moritz Bartl 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hi, We sometimes see "Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests!" on our servers. Scott Bennett suggested to set MaxOnionsPending to 250 instead of the default of 100, which at least makes the warnings disappear. [1] I am thinking about modifying out torrc template we use as as basis for all servers. What is the negative impact of setting MaxOnionsPending to 250? Should we instead reduce the bandwidth as suggested in the warning? [1] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2012-May/001352.html -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/

2 1

High speed Relays/Exit nodes
by Dennis Ljungmark 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hi, We're currently running 6 different 100-200Mbit relay/guard nodes, and are looking at some issues moving on towards high performant exit nodes. There are some administrative issues ( needing another IP block due to the RIPE registration, our ISP doesn't want their name on the exit nodes that we are responsible for ) which are generally minor ( are being resolved anyhow ) and then the big stumbling block. Right now, with iptables modifications ( raw tables hacks to disable conntrack, bucket increases, following the general best practices ) our firewall is running at high amounts of CPU, but coping. However, once we start introducing Exit Nodes into this equation, things turn sour. So, since we do not want to trust only routing level separation between Exit Nodes and internal networks, we're going to have to invest into new hardware that can cope with this. Before this, we tried Ingate firewalls, and they weren't capable of coping with the load of guard nodes. ( The traditional "linux box in front" doesn't quite cut it due to networking hardware in most cases. ) So, in summary, when you get to the point of actively dealing with 8-900Mbps of Tor traffic ( on top of normal users and others) what hardware is needed to cope with firewalling? Regards, D.S. Ljungmark

3 3

Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays
by Sriakhil Gogineni 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hello! I saw this posted on slashdot and think this is an excellent way to donate some of our time and expertise, especially considering Internet access has been declared a human right by the UN. We currently colocate with a provider and will be inquiring with them if they are OK with hosting Tor, (the post here: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tips-running-exit-node-minimal-harassment was extremely helpful for other just joining and we will be following such advice when we bring it up with our provider). Ball park quotes we got were 99$ / 100 Mbps or $599 / 1000 Mbps for transit for a single 1U... we'll see if we can get something better... Would this be helpful / viable option for a Tor exit node ? I also had just one question: what are the specs required for a Tor node? It does not seem too resource intensive but I have not been able to find any minimum system requirements. Would a current / last-generation quad core with 8GB + would suffice? Best, Sri

3 2

Paid exit nodes
by Brock Tice 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

Hi, I saw the story on Slashdot. I currently run an exit node (anfanillc) with a bandwidth limit. I have a decent uplink, though in bandwidth tests I see closer to 40 Mbps than 100 Mbps. I think $100/month would be plenty to defray the costs of removing the bandwidth limit. Maybe even less, I can talk with my ISP. I'm not charged for bandwidth right now, but my DC has to pay the ISP for it. I've already got my IP SWIPed and all that good stuff. Prior to this I've run exit nodes on and off for years without too much trouble, mostly DMCA takedowns. --Brock

1 0

How many PK operations does a typical home-run relay or bridge do in 24 hours?
by Karsten Loesing 18 Jul '12

18 Jul '12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi relay and bridge operators, want to help us design hardware capabilities of a Torouter device? At the Florence hackfest I was asked for the typical number of RSA operations performed by a relay or bridge, say, per day. We're mostly interested in home-run relays and bridges on DSL lines and similar, because that's where Torouter devices will be deployed, too. So, Amunet and TorServers are out here. :) Tor has a built-in feature to count PK operations. If one sends a USR1 signal to the tor process, it writes a line like this to its log file (though this line comes from a client): Jul 10 18:31:22.904 [info] PK operations: 0 directory objects signed, 0 directory objects verified, 0 routerdescs signed, 2968 routerdescs verified, 216 onionskins encrypted, 0 onionskins decrypted, 30 client-side TLS handshakes, 0 server-side TLS handshakes, 0 rendezvous client operations, 0 rendezvous middle operations, 0 rendezvous server operations. The number we're most interested in is "onionskins decrypted," but maybe there are other high numbers that are worth considering. If you run a relay or bridge at home, run these four steps: 1. Make sure the relay or bridge is running for at least 24 hours (longer is fine, shorter may skew results) 2. Send the process a USR1 signal, e.g., kill -USR1 $pid 3. Look for the log line above 4. Reply to this email with a) the relay's or bridge's nickname, b) the first four hex characters of its fingerprint, c) the log time and timezone, d) the top-3 PK operations by numbers. An example result could be: gabelmoo F204 Jul 10 18:31:22.904 CEST 12345 onionskins decrypted 2968 routerdescs verified 216 onionskins encrypted Thanks for your help! Once I have some results, I'll look up relays and bridges in the descriptor archive and post results to this list. Of course, if someone has more thoughts on measuring how many PK ops a relay or bridge does, please say so! :) Thanks, Karsten -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQAAjVAAoJEEk5d4GsWvIjWbMH/ilEf4dQrWqdFuZ5lYlWBnSb PAd/ru2ygGFswW4CeWWNKNnkxVd+Dcd9smVjVcpUIxlrEeMXzrZqsICre992Cjsd RjyXBnKIdwInwdVOi5ZyuWbmozCTbn5Oh3Bd47XFMDLNZIgC9itCdlGkU9Mw6bKB KO7QfbtQCTjlBEe/4mYmpW4/H+NaG5V8b3ByWtuAJz614cxckPgR2UxnEtYQXm7p TCRh/FC2jnc+7MrQZxBd6V6zLrudtdLCNLwdchGt7YBPMV3tyryvV6q/8v9ZY5jP VQTW6pKb5kVH1drL4M7oCJtt7bDnxhOGg76C7uBjWiXoaYUp4zyfeTdc57FkreM= =4Ex+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

10 11

Re: [tor-relays] SocksPort flags trouble
by Scott Bennett 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:34:08 -0400 Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)freehaven.net> wrote: >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett(a)cs.niu.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:33:52 -0400 Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)freehaven.net> >> wrote: >>>On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett(a)cs.niu.edu> wrote: >>>> While testing my torrc with 0.2.3.18-rc, I tried adding the >>>> IsolateDestAddr flag to the SocksPort line, as in >>>> >>>> SocksPort 9050 IsolateDestAddr >>>> >>>> A "tor --verify-config" claimed that I was trying to specify more >>>> than one port on that line, which would be an error. Are the SocksPort >>>> flags listed in the tor man page for 0.2.3.18-rc not yet implemented? >>> >>>Just tried it with 0.2.3.18-rc (as tagged in git), using only that >>>option. It worked for me. Could you have had some other tor in your >>>path as "tor", or something like that? >>> >> No. Here's sample output. >> >> Script started on Mon Jul 16 22:56:43 2012 >> >> [hellas] 74 % sudo -u _tor tor --verify-config >> Jul 16 22:57:03.186 [notice] Tor v0.2.3.18-rc running on FreeBSD. >> Jul 16 22:57:03.187 [notice] Tor can't help you if you use it wrong! Learn how to be safe at https://www.torproject.org/download/download#warning >> Jul 16 22:57:03.211 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/local/etc/tor/torrc". >> Jul 16 22:57:03.256 [warn] SocksListenAddress can only be used with a single SocksPort with value "auto" or 1-65535. >> Jul 16 22:57:03.256 [warn] Failed to parse/validate config: Invalid SocksPort/SocksListenAddress configuration >> Jul 16 22:57:03.256 [err] Reading config failed--see warnings above. >> [hellas] 75 % exit >> exit >> >> Script done on Mon Jul 16 22:57:42 2012 >> >> Lines in torrc beginning with "Socks" are as follows. >> >> SocksPort 9050 IsolateDestAddr # what port to open for local application connections >> SocksListenAddress 127.0.0.1 # accept connections only from localhost >> SocksPolicy accept 127.0.0.1:* >> SocksPolicy accept 192.168.0.0/16:* >> SocksPolicy reject *:* >> > >The problem with that is nothing about the SocksPort: it's about the >SocksListenAddress. You can't use SocksListenAddress with the new >SocksPort format. Instead you would need to say: > >SocksPort 127.0.0.1:9050 IsolateDestAddr > Okay. Thanks for that. However, the message probably ought to be changed to avoid confusion. After all, I did have only one port specified, and it (9050) was in the range of 1-65535, which the message implies was untrue. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] SocksPort flags trouble
by Scott Bennett 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hi Nick, On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:33:52 -0400 Nick Mathewson <nickm(a)freehaven.net> wrote: >On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett(a)cs.niu.edu> wrote: >> While testing my torrc with 0.2.3.18-rc, I tried adding the >> IsolateDestAddr flag to the SocksPort line, as in >> >> SocksPort 9050 IsolateDestAddr >> >> A "tor --verify-config" claimed that I was trying to specify more >> than one port on that line, which would be an error. Are the SocksPort >> flags listed in the tor man page for 0.2.3.18-rc not yet implemented? > >Just tried it with 0.2.3.18-rc (as tagged in git), using only that >option. It worked for me. Could you have had some other tor in your >path as "tor", or something like that? > No. Here's sample output. Script started on Mon Jul 16 22:56:43 2012 [hellas] 74 % sudo -u _tor tor --verify-config Jul 16 22:57:03.186 [notice] Tor v0.2.3.18-rc running on FreeBSD. Jul 16 22:57:03.187 [notice] Tor can't help you if you use it wrong! Learn how to be safe at https://www.torproject.org/download/download#warning Jul 16 22:57:03.211 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/local/etc/tor/torrc". Jul 16 22:57:03.256 [warn] SocksListenAddress can only be used with a single SocksPort with value "auto" or 1-65535. Jul 16 22:57:03.256 [warn] Failed to parse/validate config: Invalid SocksPort/SocksListenAddress configuration Jul 16 22:57:03.256 [err] Reading config failed--see warnings above. [hellas] 75 % exit exit Script done on Mon Jul 16 22:57:42 2012 Lines in torrc beginning with "Socks" are as follows. SocksPort 9050 IsolateDestAddr # what port to open for local application connections SocksListenAddress 127.0.0.1 # accept connections only from localhost SocksPolicy accept 127.0.0.1:* SocksPolicy accept 192.168.0.0/16:* SocksPolicy reject *:* Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************

3 2

How to Run Torservers.net
by Moritz Bartl 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Hi! In regular intervals, people ask me what it takes to run a large number of exit relays. Let me try to document a few steps that I think you need to take to become a Large Tor Operator (TM). 1) Think about registering a (non-profit) association. At least in Germany this helps with liability, and in general it helps to appear bigger than you are (and less likely to get raided). What we did was try and find a lawyer who would agree to "host" us inside his office. We succeeded, and now are a non-profit registered inside a lawyers office. How cool is that? :) 2) Register a fax number. At least law enforcement in Germany regularly uses the fax number present in IP records. We use a free German fax-to-email service, www.call-manager.de. 3) Register a phone number. The IP records should contain a phone number for abuse reports, and you don't want that to be your personal phone number. We use Sipgate One, a German VoIP service that redirects calls to cellphones and Skype for free. 4) Create handles for your organization at ARIN and/or RIPE. Example record: https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/person-role/MB22990-RIPE.html With RIPE, it works far better, most abuse reports will hit you and not that of your upstream. Having your own IP records is a key element for abuse handling. 5) Find a good ISP. This is going to be a hard one. But not too hard. Go through forums and sites where ISPs posts their latest deals, and contact them about Tor hosting. We usually divide it into a two-step process: We first ask if they were okay with a Tor exit, and with reassignment of the IP range - no details in the first mail! When they come back positively, or somewhat worried, you can still explain that you are a non-profit superb large organization filled with security professionals, and that all will be good. The two step process usually helps in elevating your request to higher levels of support staff and without scaring them off to early. See also https://www.torservers.net/wiki/hoster/inquiry 5a) Still find a good ISP. A good ISP is one that offers cheap bandwidth and is not being used by other members of the Tor community. 6) Be quick in answering abuse. We receive a very small number of complaints, given that we run high bandwith nodes. I am actually still surprised how few complaints we get. Roughly 80% are automated reports, which we ignore, and for the rest it is usually good enough to send our default template. See https://www.torservers.net/wiki/abuse/templates and https://www.torservers.net/wiki/abuse/dmca For police inquiries, we usually give them a one-liner (something like "As a German organization, we fully comply with Telemediengesetz §15 (the German telemedia law), which prohibits to log any user identifiable data or usage data unless required for billing purposes."). We get one policy inquiry per quarter on average. What did I forget? -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/

8 10

SocksPort flags trouble
by Scott Bennett 11 Jul '12

11 Jul '12

While testing my torrc with 0.2.3.18-rc, I tried adding the IsolateDestAddr flag to the SocksPort line, as in SocksPort 9050 IsolateDestAddr A "tor --verify-config" claimed that I was trying to specify more than one port on that line, which would be an error. Are the SocksPort flags listed in the tor man page for 0.2.3.18-rc not yet implemented? Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************

3 2

Mike gong has forwarded a page to you from The Tor Blog
by shallangong＠hotmail.com 07 Jul '12

07 Jul '12

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays July 2012