September 2013 - tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Relay bandwidth usage drop
by Jobiwan Kenobi 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

About 2 days ago, around midnight of September 20, bandwidth usage on my relay dropped from averaging a bit over 100KB/s to around 20KB/s. It's been low ever since. Consensus weight dropped accordingly. You can see on the graphs on atlas and globe. My relay is named jobiwan. There seems to be nothing wrong with my relay. Log is pretty clean and handshake and heartbeat reports indicate normal operation (just not much of it). From time to time I have bits of normal throughput. I have no indication that I'm being throttled or traffic shaped. Is there anything I should look into? Thanks, -Job

2 2

(no subject)
by ابوصالح 27 Sep '13

27 Sep '13

Android مرسل من الهاتف المحمول Samsung

2 1

. Re: Relay security, re: local network
by Harold Naparst 27 Sep '13

27 Sep '13

I have been running an exit relay from my home for many years with no issues. If you are willing to support the ideals of the Tor project, you should be willing to run an exit relay. Obviously, without exit relays, the Tor project would be useless. I am unable to surf to exactly one site that I know of, a hosting provider. I solved that problem by choosing another hosting provider, Amazon Web Services (AWS). If you are ever blocked, it is easy enough to rent another IP address at AWS for $7 per month by signing a one-year contract for a reserved micro-instance. Then run a squid server on that micro instance and use it as a proxy server. But as I said, this hasn't been a problem for me. Also, keep in mind that running an exit relay from your home will provide you with better anonymity. If you combine that with surfing using the Tor Browser bundle, you will have pretty good anonymity. (I read that once on the Tor project's site.) Regards, Harold

3 2

Which is more helpful, availability or speed?
by phoneyball＠vfemail.net 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

Hello all, If my relay is in a datacenter with a fast link but constrained by a in+out<100GByte monthly limit, is it more helpful to provide: * a slow relay that is usually available, e.g. 30KByte/sec available about two-thirds of the time, or: * a fast relay that hibernates a lot, e.g. 1MByte/sec but only available 1/50th of the time? Secondly, is it more helpful to be: * available every day for a fraction of that day, or: * available continuously for some consecutive days then hibernated for the rest of the month? Thanks for any advice. (I've read differing opinions on these questions written at different times, but haven't found a clear consensus.) P. Honeyball ------------------------------------------------- VFEmail.net - http://www.vfemail.net $24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features! 15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas! Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!

3 2

Future versions and Vidalia?
by J.C. 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

Are all future versions of Tor Browser Bundle going to have Vidalia permanently stripped? I'm running a stable relay on Linux with the TBB (and thus, Vidalia) instead of installing the Tor packages, and i quite like it this way. I don't remember what exactly went wrong, but some months ago i tried to get a relay running by installing and configuring it with the terminal and failed miserably, even though i was following instructions to the letter. I could try again but i'm a huge fan of the "if it's not broken, don't touch it" approach, and my relay works fantastic right now. If Vidalia is going to be permanently dropped at some point, is there any other way to continue running a relay than the terminal? I had a look at TBBv3 and didn't find a way to enable relaying.

3 5

Tor Slides
by Simon 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hello Is there a public share with presentationslides for tor ? I'll soon hava a presentation, and i want to use the most recent informations. Simon

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Future versions and Vidalia?
by Jesse Victors 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:54:34 +0300 > From: "J.C." <jc80(a)riseup.net> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: [tor-relays] Future versions and Vidalia? > Message-ID: <52400FDA.2060309(a)riseup.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Are all future versions of Tor Browser Bundle going to have Vidalia > permanently stripped? I'm running a stable relay on Linux with the TBB > (and thus, Vidalia) instead of installing the Tor packages, and i quite > like it this way. I don't remember what exactly went wrong, but some > months ago i tried to get a relay running by installing and configuring > it with the terminal and failed miserably, even though i was following > instructions to the letter. I could try again but i'm a huge fan of the > "if it's not broken, don't touch it" approach, and my relay works > fantastic right now. > > If Vidalia is going to be permanently dropped at some point, is there > any other way to continue running a relay than the terminal? I had a > look at TBBv3 and didn't find a way to enable relaying. I'm in exactly the same boat. I would _highly_ recommend that the current TBB stay exactly the way it is. I'm against having a ton of services start up by themselves. As a Linux user, I enjoy having the power to control what I start things up, and when. Sometimes I start my computer and I don't want certain things to start. The disadvantage of having a service install is that I lose much of that control. I too have tried to set up a Tor relay via packages and such, and I also failed. The TBB was orders of magnitude easier: I just click "configure relay" and things work fine. Vidalia is also extremely easy to use, and I like the interface. I would advise that the dev team reconsider. Jesse V. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJSQPJhXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAWX4H/jp1DlCgdJqRQd9I0pVpozDu VlA75uAtFxIM0VYr+eIVuC2OqQHUUFZLYNwFfePUZvIxy9bedL5WlkdZQCsaenaY wu3sLMpoBz8cH2qM/Ne5JIiFCTUEOL7XwA5d8ehdGSmnZUaBXANwiJ23uh2eVpeE HKvU/bnS5wp0YG7x/xHyQ5SGCpyWXb5H7LnGtNol9GTvbTgepo9rHtVmUCgdA5Wg BJe1yXAy/lAv5GjloejBtTu4whPuZOuY5FU+1LRHt3wnShLgEMy7UXeVQpAK2pDa mEvKD75aIb2AevGAsSdqBs2FsOOimQ7FrWudH3aZHYB6g5+nfOouLxBVcDoVjts= =Bjy+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Tor flood symptom?
by David Carlson 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

My relay that has been running release 0.2.4.17-rc for several day now has become saturated with what I would consider 'noise' - namely a huge amount of handshake activity. It does respond downward to lowereing the bandwidth setting, but the bandwidth graph is nearly flat. Now I have just noticed two crypto errors in the message log. Sep 23 14:17:32.902 [Notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 224326/224887 TAP, 40/40 NTor. Sep 23 15:17:32.999 [Notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 224169/225104 TAP, 77/77 NTor. Sep 23 16:17:32.016 [Notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 224655/225333 TAP, 63/63 NTor. Sep 23 16:50:14.883 [Warning] crypto error while checking RSA signature: block type is not 01 (in rsa routines:RSA_padding_check_PKCS1_type_1) Sep 23 16:50:14.883 [Warning] crypto error while checking RSA signature: padding check failed (in rsa routines:RSA_EAY_PUBLIC_DECRYPT) Sep 23 17:17:32.782 [Notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 222538/222987 TAP, 14/14 NTor. Sep 23 17:36:03.704 [Warning] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Sep 23 17:36:03.829 [Notice] eventdns: Nameserver 192.168.1.254:53 is back up Is this acceptable or should I report this to bugzilla? David?

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Reimbursement of Exit Operators
by tor＠t-3.net 21 Sep '13

21 Sep '13

On Friday 20/09/2013 at 6:37 am, Moritz Bartl wrote: > > I don't think exit relay operators are in a position to have anonymity > in the first place. It is fine if you manage to pay for and run your > relay anonymously, but I doubt it will survive more than a few LEA > inquiries where they end up with a fake name instead of a real > contact. > I get the sense that there are some exit node operators who can't attempt it or deliberately aren't for reasons related to the direct ownership of abuse complaints. But there are some where there could be ambiguity. It is not always clear-cut who the end-user of each service is. Things like leased servers with multiple sub-users, roommate/shared internet, shared VPNs, shells given away to friends, etc, are a part of it. > > How is the method of transferring funds relevant to liability or risk > in > that respect? What method of transfer would change anything about > that? > It's not all about the method. Thoughts are: - One way to damage Tor would be to mess things up for exit node operators either personally or professionally. IMO the less 'they' know about exit operators, the less damage they can do with that kind of approach. That would include information obtained from getting to know someone on IRC in this context, as you don't really know who you are talking to or if you're being monitored. - If authorities can ever build a case where Tor can be accused of being a dirty little network which hosts criminal content and profits from it, it seems that it could be fucked. I already saw Tor identified by one media source as simply being an internet network that criminals use. We know that this isn't a fair description but I'm not sure that would make a difference if certain cards get played? - When you can be demonstrated to have received money, depending upon what that money was sent for, it can be used against you. If money was to be sent, it seems better if it were done as a consulting sort of agreement? It would be invoiced like any other internet consulting service you are willing to provide (and it wouldn't be the only service offered). It wouldn't involve personal-feeling chats on IRC, it would be a professional relationship. What do you think? I don't want to scare anyone away with this stuff. Just feel like we should be more careful than what I was reading. Doesn't feel right to encourage exit node operators to show up on IRC with their bank account #s ready to go.

2 1

What happens with the time on turtles 76.73.17.194?
by tor-admin 21 Sep '13

21 Sep '13

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 hours, 9 minutes, or that theirs is behind. Tor requires an accurate clock to work: please check your time and date settings. Can you please check turtles. Thanks & regards, torland

2 2