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

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: [Site5 #TZZN-12908]: DMCA Complaint: mybox.ganton.ca
by tqr2813d376cjozqap1l＠tutanota.com 25 Jun '15

25 Jun '15

Send back a reply using this template: https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-dmca-response.html

1 0

A bridge too far
by jchase 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

Hello, Can anybody help me figure out why my bridge has stopped showing the flags fast, running and stable? Especially stable, I would love to get that flag back. I run two bridges, on two different Rasp Pi's, the one with a globe fingerprint of B08284109C72C81ACF5866A17A4CC64CE3E16499 . The other with a globe fingerprint of 1BCD3EBEFE17EEB86EEDE21D5E2DB8468E2864CF . The first bridge runs with obfs 3 & 4 on a Pi 2. It seems I lost the stable flag around the time I got obfs 4 up and running. The second bridge runs only with obfs 3 on an older Pi. I've read that the stable flag is quite handy. Any ideas about how I can get it back? Greetings, J Chase

3 2

exit to youtu.be via germany gema
by tor-server-creator＠use.startmail.com 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

german exit for https://youtu.be/ is breaking functionality due to disunity between google and gema. since years now. anyhow german exits shouldnt block youtube ip's, now should they?

3 3

Problems with second/third relay
by TORnet Zone 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

Really need some help here, just cannot find the answer. I've been running 2 middle relays for a year now, from a home/business IP, one DSL and the other cable. Only problems were brief and IP induced all has served the system well. I recently attempted to add a 3rd relay on the same cable feed as one of my others, but there is no way the ORport will connect. I have DMZ'd the static address, forwarded the ports, changed the ports - the ORport just will not open. And yes I realize diversity is tightened, but I'm trying to help all I can on my budget. First - CAN there be two relays on the same dynamic address (different port numbers) ? How? Do I need some form of DNS service to help? Relay 1 is Linux 3.2.0-86 and Tor 0.2.6.9. Relay 2 is Linux 3.16.0-30 and Tor 0.2.6.9. The DMZ'd relay worked until I had to forward 9001 to the 2nd, then it quit. Uptime was normally 40 - 50 days until a kernel update, or something major. Both are old laptops on battery backups that never have power down. Router is an Archer C7, latest firmware. -Gumby

4 4

Raspberry Pi - Relay Setup
by Tor Zilla 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

Hello All, I just bought a Raspberry Pi.. Wanted to setup as a Tor non exit relay. I have read so many instructions online on how to set it up but i am facing issues with opening ports. I am using a NetGear Router and require your inputs with the same. Also is static IP mandatory for setting up a relay? Thanks, TorZilla11

7 9

Re: [tor-relays] Qualities of a good relay (Sean Saito)
by teor 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:07:28 +0000 > From: <saitosean(a)ymail.com> > > I?m currently working with Dr. Virgil Griffith on Roster, a tor project that aims to reward relay operators with good relays. > > Right now we are brainstorming how to measure/quantify a good relay. > > Besides the obvious requirements of a good relay (e.g. speed, geo-diversity, constant uptime), what qualities make a relay valuable to the Tor network and its users? Autonomous System diversity, and similarly, IP-netblock diversity Operator diversity (ContactInfo, MyFamily) Operating System diversity, perhaps (most of the Tor network is Linux, including BSDs/OS X and others avoids a monoculture, but Windows is considered less secure) teor teor2345 at gmail dot com pgp 0xABFED1AC https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 teor at blah dot im OTR D5BE4EC2 255D7585 F3874930 DB130265 7C9EBBC7

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] OpenBSD: tor rc script: don't kill unrelated tor instances (patch)
by teor 23 Jun '15

23 Jun '15

> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:09:07 +0200 > From: Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen(a)fabiankeil.de> > > nusenu <nusenu(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > >>> … >>> Did you test with custom flags like "--+Log ${tor_loglevel} file >>> ${tor_logfile}"? >> >> This should read "--Log" no? > > While I prefer using neither "--Log" nor "--+Log", the latter > is valid syntax and used in the real world: > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/security/tor-devel/files/tor.in?view=… > > … >> - From tor's man page: >>> Other options can be specified on the command-line in the format >>> "--option value", in the format "option value", or in a >>> configuration file. > > Looks like the man page is incomplete. See the next section, "THE CONFIGURATION FILE FORMAT" > By default, an option on the command line overrides an option found in > the configuration file, and an option in a configuration file overrides > one in the defaults file. > > This rule is simple for options that take a single value, but it can > become complicated for options that are allowed to occur more than > once: if you specify four SOCKSPorts in your configuration file, and > one more SOCKSPort on the command line, the option on the command line > will replace all of the SOCKSPorts in the configuration file. If this > isn't what you want, prefix the option name with a plus sign, and it > will be appended to the previous set of options instead. > > Alternatively, you might want to remove every instance of an option in > the configuration file, and not replace it at all: you might want to > say on the command line that you want no SOCKSPorts at all. To do that, > prefix the option name with a forward slash. teor teor2345 at gmail dot com pgp 0xABFED1AC https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 teor at blah dot im OTR D5BE4EC2 255D7585 F3874930 DB130265 7C9EBBC7

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] OpenBSD: tor rc script: don't kill unrelated tor instances (patch)
by nusenu 23 Jun '15

23 Jun '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > Did this reply make the intentions clearer? > >> Yes, thanks. Though my first inclination would be to tell users >> "don't use rc.d if you've got the ansible role configured", I >> suppose it can't hurt to make it foolproof. I'll test your patch >> in different scenarios, and, if it works, commit it. Thank you! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJViTfhAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0164P/2ORfHYYdh2MbihJP/3yrKoK JuvgHLcRmYHob7s8vFAzdg8KqpriyNGuWCGY1b5ameXNFpy5slwGP0wmTFIe8qIA pfHVO1Oo1r4vFpMq5PEjHZloBLBnjxwDbcuC2D+b4f8YeOMjSeB4Rf6yXWF2EXju 3cEsUb5UguQ6YAcFItlW8Es/XijHp5Ad1e2DUXpl/te8FH7VxoK41ctILP4zs0kM ykPWgq7j5V0/OQS4BOe71i85S37sssejTFyPLV6kTdDUN1zLZKiUZljkgktfjAwm uMGp3FGnVWL0mN6KmK0OM1DesbRsIv0yMU/FIUyaL0vOnh/vgDt/o2seBKo7Evsy Po6w/J5X27M3gsFG5HtNuyrONssndvSsVwNQvpXf2vTiz342fulRnptCjvtNz+iI CGfpJ6i2VHH7ZMY0ZDYIfBrgZDa/HdzlZU9gk4hmORJOpol4jMjqDu44K7RW8PLo hHTqa/gWBKZsOwSpXDjsQyMYCFGvxcCXdqDOa1KNJa4zw/pZur52b7fv0s8/+Lky u19lBODZO/7br1Sg4fwmMjLVUbkQtIwtmBdbRWP6zqEByFEt/LJSt93RXs2rMtX0 IVKWCvh3+G04nZkv0AbF/YeMKe9ABp1pbP7I3M+X0wOdKzpPsBLjjUYxaOpZnhqn 7wJDlcBTqVQ86e1lavlD =WeYu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] OpenBSD: tor rc script: don't kill unrelated tor instances (patch)
by nusenu 23 Jun '15

23 Jun '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi Pascal, thanks for the fast reply. I think there is a slight misunderstanding. >> rc.subr(8) does not have multi-instance support, and it will most >> likely stay that way. Correct, and I'm _not_ trying to add that in any way to rc.subr or to your rc script. > What you're trying to do is going against that design >> decision, so I suggest you simply don't use the rc.d subsystem >> if configured for multiple instances. Even if I'm not using it at all, your rc script will kill unrelated tor instances, this is not limited to an ansible environment. The goal is only to be able to have your tor package + the ansible role on the same system without the rc script from the package interfering with unrelated tor instances created via ansible. >> I mean: As soon as you have more than one tor instance running, >> you'll have to implement a way to start/stop/restart/reload all >> of them individually anyway That is already done. Did this reply make the intentions clearer? After all the proposed fix should not generate any new problem or effort for your package, or does it? thanks! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJViTOUAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0wVUP/1PX+HjEUvDTlg8mKZzCwy4Q pXbSQpqEyuXDLbAYvN2GOnL0Vd8jSH5NxpuRFHnevdEC0/vdAbRRAJRbQwXSneYk 60XCVCLW8IFsNwDNjzDf1oXkcQFIkPQW7uoyFWxn7Km/JITtRIrpmpfdMYQ1ievM DBIEFZZWg1/Oa2NsxYPc1NQHdFoxbRLEwmRT8bZCHuPjB+pULTjZyuCpTcO4xcmt peE5SeE74X4oakrHqjLdoF0Vmcak1NNpulvV/Q/GMhqzucAbnvzoUrEHNn5ffxhC s+dd5kkrOwN61E3vg+1JxdWSK2Bh6Equ8DgIhW4pNOlenmGLQwL8HeuQ6hAJafCt rPAdEP9RtKIB+uj0KvZtngUhlkonnHeu/NGX6wSfwgL1S8SjSBCRCVPWDKs+Bkdx PM4VGBHw9USdXbBPrKvMpvDKxoX5wNJOBArTdz3UfJh+sow5tD0i/+Oq8bVK0s4u cu9TNHH+/SdriGNcwaOTKYdJ3tCQke2ACYREYrVdM6iaBKlhMhEy2oWWa/05Cp+S k5GCdsUWP/ppDK+OGHbxQ5h9xAxjNgF8myh32uMS8e0arG2X8ibnFd+1QYg+pL5s tUby7RMu0p6LsVYL7G0s1nWpaANFn8qcSdIT5AAdEOtCSl1pR973OeMh4xGoYa4+ awnwja7uPHk6DnjPY1yZ =JcuP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

OR port no longer reachable
by Patrick Derwael 22 Jun '15

22 Jun '15

Guys, I've been running a relay since many months without issue (Tor 0.2.6.9 on CentOS 6 fully patched) Since a few weeks, my OR port is no longer reachable without apparent reason (Dirport remains reachable on port 9030) [warn] Your server (xx.xx.xx.xx:9001) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. Nothing changed on my network nor on the config... Both Dir & OR port are open and routed properly (Nmap checked from the Net) Selinux & firewalling are disabled, nothing but localhost in /etc/hosts... I'm kinda puzzled... Could you tell me where I should investigate further? Thanks!

1 0