January 2020 - tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Advices about Tor Network in general...
by Hugo Claude 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

Hello everyone, I've became recently engaged agaisnt Mass surveillance program. So I'm currently running my RPi 3B+ as a Tor Relay on my home network and i wanted to know multiple things which was unclear for me. 1. Is it possible to choose my relay as my guard relay while i'm using Tor Network ? 2. Why my relay is running on 4.1.5 while some are 4.2.5 ect... ? 3. How can i make a kind of proxy to make my entire traffic passing through Tor (like Orbot on mobile phone). 4. What kind of low-budget servers (-100€), i can buy for running ≈12MB/s Relays ? Sincerely Yours, Hugo.

3 2

%include in torrc
by ylms 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

Hello Is arm supposed to complain about the line with the %include as "The torrc differs from what tor's using. You can issue a sighup to reload the torrc values....". It also complains, that the ExitPolicy, which is now in an %include file, is missing. So that seems to be bogus. Tor 0.4.2.5 in this particular case. Thanks yl

4 4

Tor Organizations Meetup during 36c3 in Leipzig (Germany)
by ml-torrelays＠artikel5ev.de 07 Jan '20

07 Jan '20

Hello everyone, during the 36c3 we organized a Tor Assembly, same as in 2017/2018. The 36c3 is the annual congress of the Germany CCC (Chaos Computer Club), which is a gathering of 17.000 people of the hacking community. I has grown a lot and people from all over the world are attending. We also had two sessions, one was a relay operator meetup with FAQ and a presentation [1] of "Foundation of Applied Privacy" about their Exits. The other session was a Tor organizations meetup. During the organizations meetup some notes were taken and it was agreed to share those afterwards. [1] https://appliedprivacy.net/presentations/ The following topics were discussed: + Concentration of Tor exit capacity in unique entities, how much of the Tor (exit) capacity should be in control of one group or person? ++ This is a recurring discussion, various people have suggested limits between 5% and 10% exit probability. ++ Frënn vun der Ënn are working on a "Tor Organization Code of Conduct" including such a self-limitation - This was only mentioned by some participants and is not first hand information. + Professionalization of operation and administration, challenges in finding/keeping volunteers. ++ One organization is running on "grown" infrastructure that is administrated by Perl scripts, which new volunteers are having difficulties working with. ++ Sharing documentation/code used by various organizations might be a solution, this has also been asked for at the Tor Relay Operator Meetup. + Why are people scared of abuse? What problem does a hosting provider face if abuse happens/is not stopped? ++ At least for most servers rented from ISPs, if you don't react to abuse email in a timely manner, they will disconnect you. ++ On a higher level, there seems to be a risk for ASNs with too much unchecked abuse. + Procurement of hardware ++ One organization mentioned CPU load issues if they allow port 22 exit traffic. Better hardware might help them. ++ If you can donate relatively modern server hardware to Tor organization, please consider mentioning this on tor-relays mailing list. + Handing over the administration of Torservers.net has not progressed very much. ++ Original post: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2019-May/017269.html ++ One problem could be a lack of information about the type and amount of work that needs to be done. ++ Handling press inquiries has been taken over by a group of other organizations, seems to be working well. + IPv6 ++ Some major Tor exit operator might loose their IPv4 space within the next 2-3 years, which makes progress in the IPv6 area crucial for them to continue contributing to the network. ++ The Tor Project got IPv6 funding from RIPE NCC, but in addition to the software portion (Tor Project responsibility) also operators need to take action and ensure they have IPv6 connectivity enabled on their systems. + BGP Routing Security ++ BGPalerter is an easy to use tool to monitor your ASN for hijacking attempts and visibility issues nitor your ASN for hijacking attempts and visibility issues https://github.com/nttgin/BGPalerter + Future meetings ++ Some organizations wish to be invited to the Tor meetings. People of some organizations attend the meetings aready through other means. The meetup took 90 minutes, in the end it was decided to organize a meetup like this each year. Quarterly mumble meetings are to be held. Some of the organizations present (in alphabetical order) were: Artikel10 - https://artikel10.org/ Artikel 5 e.V. - https://www.artikel5ev.de/ Digitalcourage - https://digitalcourage.de/en Digitale Gesellschaft - https://www.digitale-gesellschaft.ch/ Emerald Onion - https://emeraldonion.org/meraldonion.org/meraldonion.org/meraldonion.org/me… F3 Netze - https://f3netze.de/ Foundation for Applied Privacy - https://applied-privacy.net/ Nos Oignons - https://nos-oignons.net/ Zwiebelfreunde - https://www.zwiebelfreunde.de/ This text was composed in a pad by various people, the license of the text is CC-BY-SA 3.0, original text can be found here: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/eMjLydN6sIQSMbHwNwzIUHDL/ // End of protocol I hope there is no information missing, I shared the pad and some people were working on the text in the last 3 days, please feel free to discuss the topics mentioned and also feel free to add information missing. -- utzer Twitter: @utzer mailto:info@artikel5ev.de

6 9

tor crash on HUP only when SANDBOX is 1
by tor-relay＠riseup.net 06 Jan '20

06 Jan '20

Hi, I'm running an exit relay on a Debian Buster. I installed libseccomp and I've built tor 0.4.2.5 using debuild, like the wiki says. Today I noticed that tor crashes on HUP signal, only when the Sandbox option is on. I never had this problem. This is what my log says: an 05 08:23:10.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and resetting internal state. Jan 05 08:23:10.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". Jan 05 08:23:10.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". Jan 05 08:23:10.000 [notice] Tor 0.4.2.5 opening log file. ============================================================ T= 1578205390 (Sandbox) Caught a bad syscall attempt (syscall dup) /usr/bin/tor(+0x1fc9fa)[0x561d896b29fa] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(dup+0x7)[0x7f0bebf4bbc7] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(dup+0x7)[0x7f0bebf4bbc7] /usr/bin/tor(tor_log_update_sigsafe_err_fds+0x18b)[0x561d896c699b] /usr/bin/tor(set_options+0x3c0)[0x561d89642f80] /usr/bin/tor(options_init_from_string+0x17d)[0x561d896453dd] /usr/bin/tor(options_init_from_torrc+0x404)[0x561d89645a74] /usr/bin/tor(+0x5f961)[0x561d89515961] /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevent-2.1.so.6(+0x22a6c)[0x7f0bec5a3a6c] /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevent-2.1.so.6(event_base_loop+0x5a7)[0x7f0bec5a4537] /usr/bin/tor(do_main_loop+0xff)[0x561d8952a3af] /usr/bin/tor(tor_run_main+0x1105)[0x561d89517d55] /usr/bin/tor(tor_main+0x3a)[0x561d8951523a] /usr/bin/tor(main+0x19)[0x561d89514df9] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xeb)[0x7f0bebe8509b] /usr/bin/tor(_start+0x2a)[0x561d89514e4a] I'm telling you because i think it could be a bug, but I'm not sure that It's not caused by something else. At the moment I've disabled Sandbox. Please, let me know if I can fix this in some way, thanks.

4 5

relayor v20.0.0 is released
by nusenu 06 Jan '20

06 Jan '20

Hi, relayor v20.0.0 is released. relayor is an Ansible role that aims to help you with running relays with minimal effort (automate everything). https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor Changes: https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor/releases/tag/v20.0.0 kind regards, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu https://twitter.com/nusenu

1 0

Tor relay stopped working on Ubuntu 18.04 in LXD container after update to 0.4.2.5-1~bionic+1
by Clément Février 02 Jan '20

02 Jan '20

Hello, I am running a tor relay on Ubuntu 18.04 in a LXD container. After upgrading form tor version 0.4.2.5-1~bionic+1 over 0.4.1.6-1~bionic+1, it stopped working. Here what I have in /var/log/syslog Dec 23 13:22:29 tor systemd[1]: tor(a)default.service: Failed to reset devices.list: Operation not permitted Dec 23 13:22:29 tor systemd[1]: Failed to set devices.allow on /system.slice/system-tor.slice/tor(a)default.service: Operation not permitted Dec 23 13:22:29 tor systemd[1]: message repeated 2 times: [ Failed to set devices.allow on /system.slice/system-tor.slice/tor(a)default.service: Operation not permitted] Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Dec 23 13:22:29.582 [notice] Tor 0.4.2.5 running on Linux with Libevent 2.1.8-stable, OpenSSL 1.1.1, Zlib 1.2.11, Liblzma 5.2.2, and Libzstd 1.3.3. Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Dec 23 13:22:29.582 [notice] Tor can't help you if you use it wrong! Learn how to be safe at https://www.torproject.org/download/download#warning Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Dec 23 13:22:29.582 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Dec 23 13:22:29.582 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Dec 23 13:22:29.583 [notice] Based on detected system memory, MaxMemInQueues is set to 6260 MB. You can override this by setting MaxMemInQueues by hand. Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Dec 23 13:22:29.584 [warn] ControlPort is open, but no authentication method has been configured. This means that any program on your computer can reconfigure your Tor. That's bad! You should upgrade your Tor controller as soon as possible. Dec 23 13:22:29 tor systemd[1]: Failed to set devices.allow on /system.slice/system-tor.slice/tor(a)default.service: Operation not permitted Dec 23 13:22:29 tor tor[5887]: Configuration was valid Thank you in advance for you help. Regards, Clément

1 0

Where to run new relays?
by Totor be 01 Jan '20

01 Jan '20

Hi list, I'm planning to go for a full reinstall of my 2 guards in order to upgrade them to CentOS 8 & Tor 0.4.x My current relays (Tor 0.3.5.8 & CentOS7) are running at OVH (France) and I was considering installing the new ones at a more useful location France has the second highest aggregated consensus weight, so I should avoid France, THAT is clear But then I got puzzled: Should I maximise the bandwidth criteria by running the relays in countries having good connectivity and bandwidth (Europe, US...), at the cost of diversity? Should I maximise the geographical diversity (Gabon, Reunion...) at the cost of bandwidth? Alternatively, I could just stop asking stupid questions and make my life easier by reinstalling at OVH... The stats are nice indeed, but I miss clear recommendations in order to make my mind So, any useful recommendation,guys?

3 2