tor-relays January 2022

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

47 participants
30 discussions

Start a nNew thread

We need bridges with iat-mode set to 1 and especially 2 as well!
by juckiuscaesar＠web.de 26 Jan '22

26 Jan '22

5 9

tor prometheus metrics -> expected label value, got "INVALID"
by Fran 24 Jan '22

24 Jan '22

Hej, I just found out about the integrated prometheus exporter in tor - yay, thanks for that! I can scrape it with curl: $ curl http://<ip>:9035/metrics # HELP tor_hs_rdv_num_total Total number of rendezvous circuit created # TYPE tor_hs_rdv_num_total counter tor_hs_rdv_num_total{onion=<onionv3adr>} 4 # HELP tor_hs_app_write_bytes_total Total number of bytes written to the application # TYPE tor_hs_app_write_bytes_total counter tor_hs_app_write_bytes_total{onion=<onionv3adr>,port=80} 15211 # HELP tor_hs_intro_num_total Total number of introduction received # TYPE tor_hs_intro_num_total counter tor_hs_intro_num_total{onion=<onionv3adr>} 4 # HELP tor_hs_rdv_established_count Total number of established rendezvous circuit # TYPE tor_hs_rdv_established_count gauge tor_hs_rdv_established_count{onion=<onionv3adr>} 1 # HELP tor_hs_app_read_bytes_total Total number of bytes read from the application # TYPE tor_hs_app_read_bytes_total counter tor_hs_app_read_bytes_total{onion=<onionv3adr>,port=80} 319667 # HELP tor_hs_intro_established_count Total number of established introduction circuit # TYPE tor_hs_intro_established_count gauge tor_hs_intro_established_count{onion=<onionv3adr>} 18 Which looks like proper data for me. Unfortunately prometheus thinks otherwise. In the prometheus webGUI under "/targets" it complains: > expected label value, got "INVALID" The Prometheus config part is: - job_name: tor_metrics metrics_path: /metrics static_configs: - targets: - <server1>:9035 - <server2>:9035 Servers are running Debian 11, Prometheus 2.32.1 and tor 0.4.6.9-1~d11.bullseye+1 I searched the relays mailinglist and tried to find something in the internet, unfortunately not very successfully. Any ideas? Thanks a lot! fran

2 3

All relays rejected
by lists＠redpanda.bz 23 Jan '22

23 Jan '22

Hi @all, i operate family https://yui.cat/family/BD0630FF0D6E61A906A4D69340B5B1F4FC805498/ and all of my nodes are getting rejected. I have a valid contact info set in my torrc, as MyFamily for all the nodes i operate and all the nodes are running on tor 0.4.6.9 but i recieve: http status 400 ("Fingerprint and/or ed25519 identity is marked rejected -- if you think this is a mistake please set a valid email address in ContactInfo and send an email to bad-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mentioning your fingerprint(s)?") response from dirserver I sent an email already to the bad-relays list but maybe anyone of you got an idea?

2 1

Terraform to deploy Tor Relays
by Andrew Smith 19 Jan '22

19 Jan '22

Hi I wanted to share a project that I've been working on which allows deploying of Tor relays through terraform. The code and documentation is here: https://github.com/andrewmichaelsmith/terrator The focus is on running on cloud hosting providers, currently supported cloud services are digitalocean, vultr and heztner. It works - I'm using it to run some tor relays right now. There are some limitations (documented on github) though and it is still very much a work in progress. As a bit of background, after reading the call to deploy more bridges <https://blog.torproject.org/tor-censorship-in-russia/> I got thinking how useful it could be to deploy a number of bridges by simply editing a config file and pushing 'go'. After a bit of tinerking - torraform <https://github.com/andrewmichaelsmith/terrator> was born. Personally I have this hooked up to Github and Terraform Cloud (both free), meaning I can simply edit 1 file in a git repo to create new relays. Keen to hear feedback or questions! Thanks -- Andy Smith http://andrewmichaelsmith.com | @bingleybeep

2 2

IPV6 address keeps changing every 2-3 days
by Quentin Campbell 19 Jan '22

19 Jan '22

Hi, I'm running a non-exit relay on a home British Telecom broadband connection (FTTC, 20Mb up/80Mb down). Its IP addresses (IPV4 & IPV6) are allocated dynamically. The IPV4 address can remain the same for weeks. However the IPV6 address seems less stable and lasts no more than 2 or 3 days before changing. A consquence of this is that Tor Metrics (atlas) shows a lot of downtime for the node. When I see that the node is down I restart the (UBUNTU) NetworkManager although the host should pick up the new address eventually without doing that? I would like to run a stable node with as little downtime as possible. Any suggestions on how I might improve things; in particular can I automate the checking and restart of the network/TOR whenever the IPV6 address changes? Do I really need to do this? On that last point, I thought that TOR nodes handled more gracefully the issue of dynamic address changes? Is there any source of info on this for dynamic IPV6 addresses? Thanks, Quentin

3 2

Tor related talks @ rC3
by nusenu 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

in chronological order: ------------------------------------------------------ title: Towards a more Trustworthy Tor Network when: 2021-12-28, 17:00 CET where: https://streaming.media.ccc.de/rc3/csh primary target audience: - Tor user - Tor relay operators - onion service operators - and everyone that cares about Tor ------------------------------------------------------ title: The Tor Project - State of the Onion when: 2021-12-28, 18:00 CET where: https://streaming.media.ccc.de/rc3/csh ------------------------------------------------------ -- https://nusenu.github.io

2 3

DNS Timeouts - I think the threshold for overload needs raising
by AMuse 16 Jan '22

16 Jan '22

Hi all! I'm operating a TOR Exit on dedicated hardware. The load average is low (0.07) and the network load is fine (120Mb/sec out of a 1Gb/sec link). Connections aren't being dropped, and for all I can see things are fine. However, on the TOR Metrics relay search, my exit consistently shows as "Overloaded" due to DNS failures. >From my logs, I never go above 2% in DNS failures and from the debugging I've done so far it looks like most of the failures are in IPv6 lookups not returning an AAAA record because the destination site has no AAAA configured. Could whoever runs the "Overloaded" flag consider upping the overload limit to 2% or so? Or, can we tune out ipv6 and ipv4 failures separately maybe? This was never an issue until I configured my relay for v6. =========== Jan 15 19:57:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (65) fraction 1.0619% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 20:07:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (67) fraction 1.0124% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 20:17:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (71) fraction 1.1275% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 20:27:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (94) fraction 1.4003% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 20:37:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (72) fraction 1.2000% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 20:47:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (75) fraction 1.2517% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 20:57:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (70) fraction 1.1605% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 21:07:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (92) fraction 1.6028% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 21:17:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (73) fraction 1.3290% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 21:27:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (73) fraction 1.2907% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 21:37:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (65) fraction 1.0095% is above threshold of 1.0000% Jan 15 21:47:45.000 [notice] General overload -> DNS timeouts (83) fraction 1.2635% is above threshold of 1.0000%

2 2

New non-exit relay - DirPort question
by Richard Menedetter 16 Jan '22

16 Jan '22

Hi all I installed a non-exit relay 5 days ago. Works actually quit nicely. I was awarded the stable flag. (Also had briefly the HSDir flag, but lost it after a restart. Too early for the Guard flag.) So I think everything looks good. I have DirPort 9030 in my config. It is shown in nyx and the tor process listens there. But the relay search page says: Dir Address none It looks like this on my server: tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:9030 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:9001 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 :::9001 :::* LISTEN Why is it not shown and used by TOR? And what is directory for anyways? Why is it not listening und using IPv6 additionally to IPv4? Did I need to configure something additionally to get it running? Some TOR nodes show a port there. Anything to consider for new relay operators? I have limited the network traffic to 15 MB/s, so 240 MBit/s (bidirectional) so I should be well below my allowance. CU, Ricsi

3 3

Re: [tor-relays] Home Tor Middle Relay Blacklisted
by zorc 13 Jan '22

13 Jan '22

> Fellow Tor Operators: > > After about 9 months of running Tor as a Middle Relay from my home network, I'm beginning to experience signs of my public semi-static IPv4 address being blacklisted with 403 Forbidden errors from Reuters and Venmo. I've confirmed by successfully accessing both sites with my mobile internet connection. > > I'm not surprised that Venmo is blacklisting, but extremely surprised I'm being blocked by Reuters. You would think such a organization would be a proponent of free speech. I wouldn't be surprised if Reuters used Tor in some capacity. It doesn't make sense. > > When Googling my public semi-static IPv4 address, it appears in several Tor blacklists. That being said, I'm at the point that, at a minimum, I will have to ask my ISP to freshen my public semi-static IPv4 address. > > Previously, when speaking with my ISP, they mentioned offering a static IPv6 address at no cost. I'm wondering if that offer was with the expectation that I would have to give up my existing IPv4 semi-static address? If they provided both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, at no cost, I'd like to run a Tor Bridge using the?semi-static?IPv4 address and configure my existing Middle Tor Relay to use the new static IPv6 address. That way, I'll be able to browse unimpeded through the?semi-static?IPv4 address and not have to be concerned with the static IPv6 address being blacklisted. > > Are other Tor Operators experiencing similar issues? Will I continue to experience blacklisting issues, even after migrating to a Tor Bridge? What are best practices in moving an existing Tor Relay to a new address, while avoiding the loss of flags? > > As always, I appreciate the feedback. > > Respectfully, > > Gary? Hi Gary, I'm having a similar experience. My main solution is (somewhat ironically I guess) to use a VPN. The sum of the two work reasonably well. When the VPN is blocked by something, my residential IP is usually not. What I also did once is directly contact a service I am paying for, and tell them to please use the Tor exit list instead of the Tor all-relays list if they really need. After some back and forth, this site started working again, although I never heard anything back from them whether this was indeed due to my enquiry. Maybe this could work for Reuters too if you explain to them how Tor is helping especially journalists? As for the IPv6, my understanding is, that currently IPv6-only relays are not possible, i.e. your IPv4 would still show up on the blocklists. In addition, it would also show up as a Tor relay, i.e. your bridge would become blocked too. Not 100% sure on this, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, zorc PGP 64c416e08f0575609d6212c075c6b8e01967b659 Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

2 1

Bridge showing offline
by Eddie 12 Jan '22

12 Jan '22

Looking at tor metrics, one of my bridges is showing as off-line: B080140DC1BAB5B86D1CE5A4CA2EF64F20282440 However, the log isn't showing any issues: Oct 14 00:00:28.000 [notice] Tor 0.4.5.8 opening new log file. Oct 14 00:00:28.000 [notice] Configured hibernation. This interval began at 2021-10-14 00:00:00; the scheduled wake-up time was 2021-10-14 00:00:00; we expect to exhaust our quota for this interval around 2021-10-15 00:00:00; the next interval begins at 2021-10-15 00:00:00 (all times local) Oct 14 01:49:40.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 124 days 6:00 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 907.23 GB and received 922.28 GB. I've received 63052 connections on IPv4 and 8375 on IPv6. I've made 512684 connections with IPv4 and 100974 with IPv6. Oct 14 01:49:40.000 [notice] While not bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 1801791624 (server descriptor fetch); 175792 (server descriptor upload); 221750347 (consensus network-status fetch); 10974 (authority cert fetch); 19905655 (microdescriptor fetch) Oct 14 01:49:40.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Accounting enabled. Sent: 140.52 MB, Received: 140.69 MB, Used: 281.21 MB / 200.00 GB, Rule: sum. The current accounting interval ends on 2021-10-15 00:00:00, in 22:10 hours. Oct 14 01:49:40.000 [notice] Heartbeat: In the last 6 hours, I have seen 14 unique clients. Initially I thought of a previous issue I had with IPv6 connectivity, but don't think this is the problem here as the 2nd bridge on the same server is showing on-line. Also an IPv6 port scan shows the ports for both bridges as accessible. Ideas ?? Cheers.

5 8

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays January 2022