January 2015 - tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] Consensus weight dropped
by starlight.2015q1＠binnacle.cx 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

also, for recent data. . . https://collector.torproject.org/recent/

1 0

Consensus weight dropped
by Bram de Boer 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

All, In December consensus weight of both my "nosurveillance" Tor exits dropped: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/7C3AE76BB9E9E6E4F2AE9270FD824DF54A944… https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E6D740ABFFAAAD8052EDF95B2C8DC4059763F… I assumed this to be related to the directory authorities tweaking consensus weight in response to the Lizard Squad annoyance around that time. However, traffic has not yet picked up yet. Testing download and upload speeds of my server both maxed out the 100 Mbps line. I have even done a complete reinstall from a fresh Ubuntu image a week ago (while keeping the old keys, as not to restart building reputation from scratch) but that doesn't seem to help either. I am renting this dedicated server from my own private money, in my spare time as I hate surveillance and spying by governments. But right now I starting to feel silly spending that much money for a Tor exit of which only 50kbps bandwidth is used. AFAIK nothing has changed on my server, so I am puzzled why consensus has dropped and was never restored again. Please advice, Thanks, Bram de Boer

10 29

Digital Ocean: Moving to better Plan
by Abhiram Chintangal 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

Hello, I have been running a tor middle relay[1] for the past few months. Apart from tweaking the configuration a few times, I didn't have to do much to get things working. One thing that I noticed in the last two months is that my relay is eating up the 1tb bandwidth in the first three weeks. So I am thinking of moving to a better plan or tweaking the current config to serve the bandwidth so that the relay is up for the entire month. Btw, here is my .torrc ORPort 443 DirPort 80 Exitpolicy reject *:* Nickname orpheus ContactInfo orpheus.tor(a)risup.net Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log RelayBandwidthRate 1024 KB RelayBandwidthBurst 1024 KB MaxAdvertisedBandwidth 1024 KB DisableDebuggerAttachment 0 AccountingMax 500GBytes AccountingStart month 1 0:00 Thank you! -- Abhiram Chintangal [1]: https://atlas.thecthulhu.com/#details/3045303283D4EAF74C8FA053054C691BB451A…

2 2

Re: [tor-relays] entry guard interference?
by starlight.2015q1＠binnacle.cx 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

At 06:20 1/31/2015 -0500, grarpamp wrote: >Yet during the time of an outage, you might try >to leave the old tor running and. . . Also I see I should make a copy of the cached-* files and the state file in case some anomaly is present the Tor routing data. I did look at Vidalia'a network map at the time of the incident and the list of relays on the left side looked ok. On the right side something like <path> <path> etc appeared where client connections normally are listed.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] entry guard interference?
by starlight.2015q1＠binnacle.cx 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

At 06:20 1/31/2015 -0500, grarpamp wrote: >Yet during the time of an outage, you might try >to leave the old tor running and. . . I see the idea here but it's a lot of fiddling and preparation. If it continues to happen and I suspect a bug, I'll upgrade the relay version and run 'tcpdump' with a ring-buffer capture that holds the last two or three hours of traffic. Then I just have to stop the 'tcpdump' and review what happened. Look for ICMP "not reachable," injected RST's etc. If my "just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" theory is correct, it may never happen again. Certainly the spooks of the world all read the Tor mailing lists.

1 0

nearly no bandwith usage with high Consensus Weight?
by AFO-Admin 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi since some days my relays dropped to nearly zero bandwith but the consensus weight is still high. I never saw a behaivier like this before, maybe somebody can tell me what is going wrong here? Thanks for help https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/F5D03B59A330BE399EAA793FA35353ADD7E4A… https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/14EC9284918461506FC47D6FD9F1C71C3DA11… -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUzHNkAAoJEOExTryL2+47hKEP/Rz7HTULqcLi8ssZXqDwe0LJ GVoNVi+wOByB9BkcT6tC+imdJf6TabQY/WdfmkdNCd0rtGkDyz+kCExwU3xJNTlP 8yaPCuyr9wJMjkMR7F7P3ZA3LvzQ/PQE9z5L1PrvYZOVv7g22aR5KaebrrvhMLWJ RiBgUEGusrmQIdz3WOqTApRE4IOGr7UMg9HrLpK8KWdKT7dUvA0BauonentLxK5D njS5ZbZNIpvN+uPfVGzuJTAL3jIi4QZP8JVyz1kKdIaH2argxP7ReEYakOxNlxqy UkTVIBO1/7/VI1m8NhCSjzE07xagxtjDedGLCJW6b7VxeZ6g3fAgKWFnhc8Fej8c NJzTJXDfmiBjv20v1F9Q7lrxDjSiF8290zSfj99iLN6MsYJgfWthJfoLgwAn4sO6 4HYCyLfwqkZmtZM/UAwR3tfGp/uAi8KRpYrXUqMPjlgQgsh0/dHyIj6eewe93ED6 AThOTeTxz+azOkt0/i9efpppgAWJNd0dzeNDy2drLihDtByJ2e3Zb5MdxisXUGBg 396UOBgm67/rfJJkRqlMcjbWbX8xk3uYVmxM+JO7AHmRFRXcaBhS/EBnjdf9PUr/ K9bcBGK0CXvpwvsQceh+DyBe257tb6a8yU653LQARPfVa3uqBhjMTAP+Zda7ErZa EAUl9lT22QiAYw6QET4l =tuIU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Mozilla's 'deploying tor relays' blog post
by Sebastian Urbach 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

Hi, The ramp up time is not 2 months. It's 3 months with the actual version. Lets see if they read the comments ;-) -- Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations / M.f.G. Sebastian Urbach ----------------------------------------- Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth. ----------------------------------------- Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956), American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist and critic.

1 0

Mozilla's 'deploying tor relays' blog post
by Nusenu 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

https://blog.mozilla.org/it/2015/01/28/deploying-tor-relays/ ansible configuration https://github.com/XioNoX/moz-tor-relays/

1 0

GHOST: glibc gethostbyname buffer overflow
by goll 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

Hello operators, If you have not done so already, update your glibc: "as a result, most stable and long-term-support distributions were left exposed (and still are): Debian 7 (wheezy), Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 & 7, CentOS 6 & 7, Ubuntu 12.04, for example." http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/01/27/9 Best regards

1 0

could smoothing/smearing a consensus weights change makes sense
by Toralf Förster 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

I am wondering if an adversary would be able to derive useful information due to the fact that the consensus weights are changed abrupt ? (screen shot attached) -- Toralf pgp key: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 0076 E94E

2 1