- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

@Rana - with reference to: Unwarranted discrimination of relays with dynamic
by Patrice 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Hi, I`ve read your post and questions, also about your 2 Raspberry PIs with the same setting but different locations. I thought about it and my question is: Did these to PIs got a new fresh identity on day zero? If not, it`s worth a try, probably. Kill the old identities and let them by. My fundamental idea is (and that`s why I am writing this): Does my behaviour with the relay (restarting, upgrading, not be onlinening) effect the measurement and therefore the throughput of my relay? Cheers, Patrice

1 0

confusing error from "tor --verify-config"
by Patrice 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi folks, my relay is running fine [zeiberschnitzel] and it got no errors. I can`t see anything in the logs either. But when I do the command #tor --verify-config I got these outputs: Dec 20 18:20:27.946 [notice] Tor v0.2.8.11 (git-9fc59eddc17a726a) running on Linux with Libevent 2.0.21-stable, OpenSSL 1.0.1t and Zlib 1.2.8. Dec 20 18:20:27.947 [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 20 18:20:27.947 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". Dec 20 18:20:27.956 [warn] /var/lib/tor is not owned by this user (root, 0) but by debian-tor (105). Perhaps you are running Tor as the wrong user? Dec 20 18:20:27.957 [warn] Failed to parse/validate config: Couldn't access/create private data directory "/var/lib/tor" Dec 20 18:20:27.957 [err] Reading config failed--see warnings above. I would say it`s nothing tragical but I am curios about it. Thanks and Cheers

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] confusing error from "tor --verify-config"
by Patrice 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi, > My bad, shell for debian-tor is set to /bin/false and so it prevents any > command from running. Setting shell should "fix" this: > > su debian-tor -s /bin/sh -c "tor --verify-config" > > -- > Ivan Markin thank you for your hint, that solved it. :-) Now I`ve got this beautiful non error output: # su debian-tor -s /bin/sh -c "tor --verify-config" Dec 21 14:10:43.078 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.8 (git-a0df013ea241b026) running on Linux with Libevent 2.0.21-stable, OpenSSL 1.0.1t and Zlib 1.2.8. Dec 21 14:10:43.078 [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 21 14:10:43.078 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". Configuration was valid Cheers, Patrice

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] confusing error from "tor --verify-config"
by Patrice 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi, > I would suggest running tor --verify-config as debian-tor user instead of > root After I run the following command I`ve got no output. Is this correct then? I expected a few lines somehow. su -c "/etc/init.d/tor --verify-config" debian-tor > I would suggest not running tor as root .:) > As root you can do: > su debian-tor "tor --verify-config" > I am not running tor as root. Tor runs as "debian-tor". I installed it from the repositories and changed nothing in the permissions. Cheers, Patrice

3 2

Updating our IP Address
by diffusae 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hi! Yesterday I encountered a strange IP address update via DynDNS: Dec 19 23:00:32.000 [notice] Your IP address seems to have changed to 176.10.104.240 (METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Updating. Dec 19 23:00:32.000 [notice] Our IP Address has changed from xx.xx.xx.xx to 176.10.104.240; rebuilding descriptor (source: METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Dec 19 23:00:36.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Dec 19 23:04:32.000 [notice] Your IP address seems to have changed to xx.xx.xx.xx (METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Updating. Dec 19 23:04:32.000 [notice] Our IP Address has changed from 176.10.104.240 to xx.xx.xx.xx ; rebuilding descriptor (source: METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Dec 19 23:04:34.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Dec 19 23:08:32.000 [notice] Your IP address seems to have changed to 176.10.104.240 (METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Updating. Dec 19 23:08:32.000 [notice] Our IP Address has changed from xx.xx.xx.xx to 176.10.104.240; rebuilding descriptor (source: METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Dec 19 23:08:34.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Dec 19 23:13:32.000 [notice] Your IP address seems to have changed to xx.xx.xx.xx (METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Updating. Dec 19 23:13:32.000 [notice] Our IP Address has changed from 176.10.104.240 to xx.xx.xx.xx; rebuilding descriptor (source: METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME=my.dyndns.cc). Dec 19 23:13:36.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Dec 19 23:22:38.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor The DynDNS client updates the IP every five minutes. It looks like somebody has tried to changed / update the IP manually or via spoofed update (DNS) entry. I also recognized the change at the WebGUI of the DynDNS Provider. The changed IP address is an exit node (0111BA9B604669E636FFD5B503F382A4B7AD6E80) in Switzerland. I don't think, that this is a bug in Tor 0.2.9.7-rc. Are there any possible attacks to Tor relays, if they are using a faked IP address? Normally this shouldn't work. Even if the traffic is redirected to an exit node, but I am not sure. Well, it should be safer to use autodetection of the IP though Tor. Regards,

3 4

Report of home relay experience (cont'd)
by Rana 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Of the two relays that I run from two different residential premises for some time now, the first, nicknamed ZG0 (has absolutely stable dynamic IP and Stable flag for many days now) is clinically dead despite the measured BW of 100 kbytes/sec. The second, nicknamed GG2 (static IP, Stable, Fast, HSdir) is not dead but is relaying only about 0.5 gbytes per day. That's an average rate of just 4% of its never-changing measured BW of 153 Kbytes/sec (which is equal to 100% of its bandwidth limit in torrc). It currently has 900 connections and made over 16,000 circuit handshakes in the last 6 hours, all of them successful. The two relays run on identical Pies with the same configuration except the bandwidth limit (which is higher on ZG0 than on GG2) and negligible CPU and memory utilization. Comments? Rana

3 3

confusing error from "tor --verify-config"
by Patrice 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hi folks, my relay is running fine [zeiberschnitzel] and it got no errors. I can`t see anything in the logs either. But when I do the command #tor --verify-config I got these outputs: Dec 20 18:20:27.946 [notice] Tor v0.2.8.11 (git-9fc59eddc17a726a) running on Linux with Libevent 2.0.21-stable, OpenSSL 1.0.1t and Zlib 1.2.8. Dec 20 18:20:27.947 [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 20 18:20:27.947 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". Dec 20 18:20:27.956 [warn] /var/lib/tor is not owned by this user (root, 0) but by debian-tor (105). Perhaps you are running Tor as the wrong user? Dec 20 18:20:27.957 [warn] Failed to parse/validate config: Couldn't access/create private data directory "/var/lib/tor" Dec 20 18:20:27.957 [err] Reading config failed--see warnings above. I would say it`s nothing tragical but I am curios about it. Thanks and Cheers

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] zencurity.dk relays: MyFamily update required
by nusenu 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Henrik Lund Kramshøj: > So sorry, I have updated config with family thanks for fixing it.

1 0

Tor blocked in Turkey as government cracks down on VPN use (Turkey Blocks 2016-12-18)
by Ralph Seichter 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

https://turkeyblocks.org/2016/12/18/tor-blocked-in-turkey-vpn-ban/

1 0

Flags?
by balbea16 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Hi There, I assume, that this has been discussed here already pretty often. However, it seems to be, that the "stable flag" is only assigned to relays with a static, or at least long lasting, IP address. It also seems to be, that the stable flag is mandatory to get the guard flag. If so, that would mean: Dynamic address = no chance to obtain the guard flag. Is that the truth? Tnx Mike

4 3