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

Running Bind locally
by Yoriz 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

My VPS hoster has configured DNS as follows: $ cat /etc/resolv.conf nameserver 8.8.8.8 nameserver 8.8.4.4 I believe these are Google's DNS servers. Unfortunately, they are somehow unreliable (possible rate-limited by Google). My tor logs are filled with: Sep 07 16:37:24.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Sep 07 16:37:25.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back up Sep 07 16:37:35.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Sep 07 16:37:35.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back up Are there other free, open DNS services that might be more reliable/less rate-limited? Does Tor use the system DNS configuration? In other words, if I would run a local Bind daemon, would my tor exit use it? Is that bad for the safety of the tor user, as the Bind daemon effectively becomes an audit log of all domains visited by tor users? // Yoriz

7 8

Exit relay operators: a call for packets on port 8118
by rotpoison throngnet 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

I am an exit relay operator in Honolulu that has posted to this list before, on the same subject. I am hoping that some other exit relay operators can sniff for packets to destination port 8118 (usually used for Privoxy) to confirm that they are seeing the same thing I am on all exit relays that I have set up in the last half year. Depending on your network configuration, you might have to instead record firewall logs for that port. Don’t worry, unless you have your Privoxy service open to the world, you won’t be intercepting or eavesdropping on any legitimate traffic. You should just be seeing SYN packets from a few hundred-strong net of Windows servers now hosted at Gorilla Servers, Ubiquity/Nobistech, and Limestone Networks, with a handful at Psychz. I am calling this malicious (?) net of Windows servers Rotpoi$on. I have more details in the most recent blog post at https://b.kentbackman.com Thanks for your help. - Kent

5 5

Fwd: New tor node not acting as an exit server?
by Niles Rogoff 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

I scrapped my previous exit node and set up a new one on a different machine. It's been running for 6 and a half hours, but does not have the exit flag. The logs say both my ORPort and DirPort are reachable from the outside, and using arm from a different machine shows two circuits open. >From the config file: ExitPolicy reject 192.168.0.0/16:*,accept *:80,accept *:443,reject *:* Anyone know why my new node isn't being used or recognized as an exit node? Did I forget a config option? Fingerprint: 1e598cdb9bbc751d753146d880b326952886d73b

2 2

Re: [tor-relays] Tor node was doing more traffic than its bandwidthis configured for
by tor＠t-3.net 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

Yeah, this must be wrong, then. I put this in the torrc: RelayBandwidthRate 35 MB RelayBandwidthBurst 40 MB and I was looking to limit it to 35-40 "M" as shown in Cacti, which would be MBits. On Sunday 08/09/2013 at 5:38 am, grarpamp wrote: > On 9/8/13, Roger Dingledine <arma(a)mit.edu> wrote: >> >> Are you sure you didn't confuse bits and bytes? Tor counts in bytes. >> >> (The arm monitor, if that's what you're using, counts in bits by >> default.) > > As with real networks and operators, if this is so, then big thank > you to arm people for correctly counting network bandwidth in bps. > No thanks on webhosters and isp's who convert their upstrream > bandwidth contracts into transfer bytes and pass that on to their > customers for their apache logs, thereby spoofing hosted network > *bandwidth* apps like Tor into feeling some silly need to count bytes. > Do wish Tor would speak properly in bits by default. > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

3 2

Guard failing large amount of circuits
by I 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

3 2

Tor node was doing more traffic than its bandwidth is configured for
by tor＠t-3.net 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

I updated our node to the RC version some days ago. Earlier today, it started to do a traffic amount that was higher than it had been configured to do in torrc. Torrc was configured for 35M use and 40M burst, but today it went to 50M and stayed there for an hour. Killing it HUP didn't help. I did a service restart on it to bring it back down.

3 2

User report with TBB 2.4.17rc
by David Carlson 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

As of the time-stamp on this e-mail it is extremely slow using TBB 2.4.17 rc to access such places as gmail.com. It took me about 10 minutes since I first fired it up to sent this email. David C

3 2

ExitPolicy reject *:* ships commented out?
by gordon＠thisblueroom.net 07 Sep '13

07 Sep '13

I convinced a friend to run a Tor relay (he was happy to do so) but he claims he just upgraded and that this line: ExitPolicy reject *:* # no exits allowed is commented out by default. So his VPS got shut down over a bunch of complaints and he got banned from Freenode on it. Is that true? I could've sworn 0.2.4.x shipped with that as the *default* exit policy - as it should, given the potentially catastrophic legal consequences in some countries for those setting up a relay who unwittingly set up an exit relay rather than a middle node. Best, -Gordon M.

9 9

[ARM] Connecting to another host's control port with ARM: Connection refused.
by Robert Charlton 07 Sep '13

07 Sep '13

Hello, Tor community. Quick, possibly noobish question. I'd like to use my desktop and connect ARM (running on the desktop) to the control port of a server running Tor on the same LAN, but it's refusing the connection. I'm running /sudo -u tor arm -i 10.0.0.3:9051/, and it outputs: robert@CPC-Arch:~$ sudo -u tor arm -i 10.0.0.3:9051 [sudo] password for robert: Connection refused. Is the ControlPort enabled? I can connect to the control port from the same host fine, but when I try to do it from another host it fails. There must be something I'm missing. Hope you guys can help me. Thanks. -Robert

3 3

The Tor flood
by David Carlson 07 Sep '13

07 Sep '13

I think that it may be somewhat ego-centric to accept the argument that this apparent flood is actually directed at the Tor network. It may be that the real goal is to find efficient weapons to attack the Internet as a whole, or major segments of it. It may be measuring the response time of the Tor network as well as that of various defenders who are trying to disarm bot-nets. David C

2 1