- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Setting up HTML page for exit relay
by templeos＠skiff.com 29 Jan '24

29 Jan '24

If I want to serve an HTML page for my exit node do I need Apache2/nginx or can I just modify my torrc?

3 2

tor relayS! stuck at 100% bootstrapped - not kickstarting 8B6A6D02A80A7CBB1ED0630150D8D9F9F7D471AF
by eff_03675549＠posteo.se 29 Jan '24

29 Jan '24

Hi. I am trying several Singapoor relays stuck at 100% bootstrapped without any coming speed evaluation nor id key attributions, 8B6A6D02A80A7CBB1ED0630150D8D9F9F7D471AF one middle/guard out of 4/5 came out witn keys an shows in relay search still without any speed attribution now over 48 hours, the others (guards, exit) are tusk at 100% bootstrapped. all in singapoor. Your kind evaluation please. an.

1 0

What a mess with the database of 'metrics.torproject.org'!
by Tschador 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

Example: Fingerprint: 9D5A7A81BC6194555CE751F75FB196E4A3982CC5 This relay appears to be less than 2 weeks old. Uptime 43 days 13 hours 30 minutes and 17 seconds First Seen 2024-01-10 16:00:00 (14 days 2 hours 32 minutes and 41 seconds) Last Restarted 2023-12-12 05:02:24 When will it be fixed? Regards

1 0

Why is Cloudflare displayed when I do a speed test?
by templeos＠skiff.com 19 Jan '24

19 Jan '24

A blog post I discovered brought up that when they perform a speed test through Tor browser, Cloudflare is quite frequently displayed as the local host. I had the same result. Is there a reason for this, like perhaps the exit relay is proxied through Cloudflare? You can easily replicate this yourself by going to speedtest.net in Tor Browser.

1 0

A new kind of attack?
by Chris Enkidu-6 19 Jan '24

19 Jan '24

I've noticed a new kind of possible attack on some of my relays, as early as Dec.23 which causes huge spikes of outbound traffic that eventually maxes out RAM and crashes Tor. The newest one today lasted for 5 hours switching between two of the three relays on the same IP. During the attack, Tor becomes so busy processing the traffic that it becomes unresponsive to new connections for minutes at a time and effectively becomes a zombie exclusively processing the attacker's traffic until it eventually crashes and restarts. The interesting part is that when Tor restarts, it doesn't start from scratch building new circuits but it starts right from where it left out and keeps processing the previous connections. I have tried shutting down Tor for over 5 minutes and within one minute of restart, The RAM maxes out and the outbound traffic reaches the previous heights. This has been happening, not to all relays but to a select group of relays at a time and unless you're monitoring your Tor port from outside, you may not notice it's unresponsive. Another way to see if it's happening to you too is to check your monthly history on the metrics page and look for spikes of written bytes or sudden decrease of read bytes where you see a big gap between the two. I have included charts and excerpts from the log in my post in Tor forum at below link: https://forum.torproject.org/t/new-kind-of-attack/11122 I'd appreciate your insights and comments. Thank you.

6 5

Re: [tor-relays] Relay in Japan being marked as a US relay?
by 0tpcqovw＠duck.com 18 Jan '24

18 Jan '24

https://www.infobyip.com/ip-198.13.48.219.html Shows Japan! Malcolm On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:00 PM NodNet < tor_at_nodnetwork.org_0tpcqovw(a)duck.com> wrote: > I think tor and Tor Project use IPFire's DB for GeoIP lookups, and > 198.13.48.219 shows the following: > > NETWORK: 198.13.48.0/20 > AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM: AS20473 - AS-CHOOPA > COUNTRY: United States of America > > https://www.ipfire.org/projects/location/lookup/198.13.48.219 > > On 1/18/2024 11:22 AM, Jag Talon wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a relay in Japan with the IP of 198.13.48.219, but it's being > > marked as being in the US. I've tried using different websites like > > www.iplocation.net, iplocation.io, and www.wolframalpha.com and > > they're all telling me that the IP is in Japan. > > > > I'm wondering if perhaps there's an issue with the GeoIP lookup? Or > > perhaps an outdated database? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tor-relays mailing list > > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >

2 1

Relay in Japan being marked as a US relay?
by Jag Talon 18 Jan '24

18 Jan '24

Hello, I have a relay in Japan with the IP of 198.13.48.219, but it's being marked as being in the US. I've tried using different websites like www.iplocation.net, iplocation.io, and www.wolframalpha.com and they're all telling me that the IP is in Japan. I'm wondering if perhaps there's an issue with the GeoIP lookup? Or perhaps an outdated database? Thanks! -- Jag Talon Designer for the Tor Project

8 10

PSA: Tor 0.4.7 reaches end of life (EOL) on 2024-01-31
by Georg Koppen 17 Jan '24

17 Jan '24

Hello! In case it affects you as you are still running your relay or bridge on Tor 0.4.7.x: the 0.4.7 series is going EOL on *2024-01-31* (roughly in 2 weeks from now). That's currently still 1346 relays, which means roughly 15% of the advertised bandwidth of the network (and 964 bridges, which means roughly 45% of the advertised bridges bandwidth). Please make sure you have upgraded to the 0.4.8.x series by then. Supported releases in general can be found on the network team wiki.[1] Thanks, Georg [1] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/team/-/wikis/NetworkTeam/CoreTorRele…

1 0

Relay that's been running for a long time suddenly saying it's new?
by Keifer Bly 17 Jan '24

17 Jan '24

Hi, So my relay at https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/79E3B585803DE805CCBC00C1EF36… is suddenly saying it's a new relay. Don't know why this would happen as it's been running for a few years, but suddenly saying it's new? Thanks. --Keifer

6 6

Re: [tor-relays] Relay not connecting
by denny.obreham＠a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net 16 Jan '24

16 Jan '24

> On 01/16/2024 02:48 AM Chris Enkidu-6 wrote .. > If > you're running other services on the same server of course the heavy > load might disrupt those services as well, which is why it's always a > good idea to only run Tor on the server and not to mix it with other > services. That is the funny thing, everything else was working fine. Only the Tor relays experienced connection problems. Even the Tor bridge seemed to be running fine. > And in the long run, if you find that you don't > have the resources or patience to deal with such heavy load, consider > running a middle/Guard relay instead of an Exit. They're much easier to > deal with during an attack. But don't quit. It'll pass. I'm still in the process of gaining experience but don't worry about me quitting, I consider this my new hobby. My servers are exclusively dedicated to this - so there is nothing important on them for me to lose. Also, I pride myself on running exclusively exit relays as this is what is apparently needed and thus it is where the challenge lies for me. Hi, I didn't see your original email and I don't currently have it in my inbox to reply to it directly but I can tell you by looking at your metrics history for "Alberta", indeed you had the same problem on Dec.18 that happened to my relays. The attackers seem to be picking a group of relays at a time and move on to others and it may be a while before they come back again. However the problem gets amplified if you're running an exit relay without having large enough resources to deal with all this traffic. I'm not running an exit relay, so I have to deal with the problem for a few hours, but all this outgoing traffic from my relay and other relays that are under attack will inevitably end up at exit relays. This means that even if they move on from my relay to another one, the traffic will still continue to poor into exit relays, so the duration of the attack for an exit relay may be much longer. This shouldn't stop you from bringing your rely back up. You're not doing anything wrong and there's nothing wrong with your set up. If you're running other services on the same server of course the heavy load might disrupt those services as well, which is why it's always a good idea to only run Tor on the server and not to mix it with other services. My suggestion for the time being, keep running my firewall scripts as they do help making the duration of the attack shorter by putting some of those IP addresses in the block list and help making it less painful and see how it goes. And in the long run, if you find that you don't have the resources or patience to deal with such heavy load, consider running a middle/Guard relay instead of an Exit. They're much easier to deal with during an attack. But don't quit. It'll pass. Cheers. On 1/15/2024 8:14 PM, denny.obreham(a)a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net wrote: > > Sorry, but I'm going to vent a little bit. I'm not a network > specialist, so 11 days ago I sent the following email to this mailing > list asking for help because two of my Tor exit relays were completely > frozen and I was unable to put them online again. > > > Nobody answered, not even a comment. No wait, there was one person - > very active on this mailing list recently - who sent me an email > personally to tell me that I was an idiot (referring to what, I don't > know) who should kill himself. Adding furthermore that if I didn't > commit suicide within 72 hours, he would personally come to my house > and kill me with a Glock 9 mm. Fun stuff, very disturbing. > > > Anyway, no serious answers, someone calling m e an idiot: I tried to > look as best as I could at what I did wrong. Couldn't find anything. > My only available solution was to rebuild completely my server, > something I wanted to do for a while because of other undesired quirks > that were bothering me with my setup. I knew it would take a long time > - which I didn't really have - but I finally finished my new setup > yesterday. (Don't look for 25FC41154DCB2CAE3ABD74A8DFCD5B90D2CFFD57 or > the bridge, they have been shut down for the moment.) > > > Today, I read a line from Chris Endiku-6 saying: "Thereâs something > going on for a while and I havenât seen any mentions of it." The exact > problem I mentioned! He says it goes "as early as Dec.23"; my problem > goes to Dec 18 as shown in my previous email. Also, not mentioned in > my previous email, before I renewed my setup, my tor-ddos firewall > rules (I use the ones f rom Endiku-6) had blocked about 5 times more > IP than usual - if that can be useful information to anyone. > > > Sorry for the rent, I just needed to vent a little: There was > something wrong, and I wasn't crazy or incompetent! > > > I still would like to know how to restart such a relay, if this > happens again in the future - other than reinstalling the entire > server, that is. > > > Thanks in advance. > > > On 01/06/2024 01:52 PM denny.obreham(a)a-n-o-n-y-m-e.net wrote .. > > I manage the two following exit relays: * > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/25FC41154DCB2CAE3ABD7 4A8DFCD5B90D2CFFD57* > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/3B85067588C3F017D5CCF 7D8F65B5881B7D4C97C > They are both on the same IP and servers. A few hours ago they > lost contact even though I have both Apache and I2P servers on the > same machine that are reachable. The weird log messages seem to go > back to Dec 18, after a restart: ``` Dec 18 07:49:47 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bootstrapped 100% (done): Done Dec 18 > 07:54:18 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Your computer is too > slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please > consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or > choosing a more restricted exit policy. Dec 18 07:57:11 > a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Your computer is too slow to > handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using > the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more > restricted exit policy. [14254 similar message(s) suppressed in > last 180 seconds] ``` There are a few more of these messages > appearing afterward (My bandwidth is unlimited). This is the > typical Heartbeat that comes afterward: ``` Dec 18 13:49:42 > a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 6:00 > hours, with 476 circuits open. I've sent 30.87 GB and received > 9.04 GB. I've received 13401 connections on IPv4 and 0 on IPv6. > I've made 46754 connections with IPv4 and 0 with IPv6. Dec 18 > 13:49:42 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: While not > bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 6412201 (server descriptor > fetch); 1424 (server descriptor upload); 376002 (consensus > network-status fetch); 57564 (microdescriptor fetch) Dec 18 > 13:49:42 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Circuit handshake > stats since last time: 8/8 TAP, 1356688/6457307 NTor. Dec 18 > 13:49:42 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Since startup we > initiated 0 and received 0 v1 connections; initiated 0 and > received 0 v2 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v3 > connections; initiated 0 and received 429 v4 connections; > initiated 285 and received 11137 v5 connections. Dec 18 13:49:42 > a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since > startup: 0 circuits killed with too many cells, 0 circuits > rejected, 0 marked addresses, 0 marked addresses for max queue, 0 > same address concurrent connections rejected, 0 connections > rejected, 0 single hop clients refused, 0 INTRODUCE2 rejected. ``` > Then I have this kind of message appearing: ``` Dec 18 14:13:23 > a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: No circuits are opened. Relaxed > timeout for circuit 4487 (a Measuring circuit timeout 3-hop > circuit in state doing handshakes with channel state open) to > 60000ms. However, it appears the circuit has timed out anyway. [4 > similar message(s) suppressed in last 3300 seconds] ``` Then a few > days later, this bug report: ``` Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: tor_bug_occurred_(): Bug: > ../src/core/or/conflux.c:567: conflux_pick_first_leg: Non-fatal > assertion !(smartlist_len(cfx->legs) <= 0) failed. (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > Tor 0.4.8.10: Non-fatal assertion !(smartlist_len(cfx->legs) <= 0) > failed in conflux_pick_first_leg at ../src/core/or/conflux.c:567. > Stack trace: (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(log_backtrace_impl+0x5b) > [0x55651f95b37b] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_bug_occurred_+0x18a) > [0x55651f97294a] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(conflux_decide_next_circ+0x40e) [0x55651fa12afe] (on > Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > Bug: /usr/bin/tor(circuit_get_package_window+0x75) > [0x55651fa12ec5] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x9ed63) [0x55651f908d63] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(connection_edge_package_raw_inbuf+0xae) > [0x55651f90b80e] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(connection_edge_process_inbuf+0x6f) [0x55651fa2b9df] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x1c2fb4) [0x55651fa2cfb4] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x73ffc) [0x55651f8ddffc] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevent-2.1.so.7(+0x1ff58) [0x7fcee899bf58] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevent-2.1.so.7(event_base_loop+0x577) > [0x7fcee899d8a7] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(do_main_loop+0x127) > [0x55651f8de7c7] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_run_main+0x215) > [0x55651f8e2805] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_main+0x4d) > [0x55651f8e2c6d] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(main+0x1d) [0x55651f8d4dcd] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x29d90) [0x7fcee80a8d90] (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0x80) > [0x7fcee80a8e40] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(_start+0x25) > [0x55651f8d4e25] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: conflux_pick_first_leg(): Bug: Matching > client sets: (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: conflux_log_set(): Bug: Conflux > 566550141B144136: 0 linked, 0 launched. Delivered: 75; teardown: > 0; Current: (nil), Previous: (nil) (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 > 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > conflux_pick_first_leg(): Bug: Matching server sets: (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > conflux_log_set(): Bug: Conflux 566550141B144136: 0 linked, 0 > launched. Delivered: 75; teardown: 0; Current: (nil), Previous: > (nil) (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: conflux_pick_first_leg(): Bug: End conflux > set dump (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: circuit_get_package_window(): Bug: Conflux > has no circuit to send on. Circuit 0x556536e76c20 idx 138 marked > at line ../src/core/or/command.c:663 (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 > 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: tor_bug_occurred_(): > Bug: ../src/core/or/conflux.c:567: conflux_pick_first_leg: > Non-fatal assertion !(smartlist_len(cfx->legs) <= 0) failed. (on > Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > Bug: Tor 0.4.8.10: Non-fatal assertion !(smartlist_len(cfx->legs) > <= 0) failed in conflux_pick_first_leg at > ../src/core/or/conflux.c:567. Stack trace: (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec > 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(log_backtrace_impl+0x5b) [0x55651f95b37b] (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(tor_bug_occurred_+0x18a) [0x55651f97294a] (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(conflux_decide_next_circ+0x40e) [0x55651fa12afe] (on > Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > Bug: /usr/bin/tor(circuit_get_package_window+0x75) > [0x55651fa12ec5] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x9ed63) [0x55651f908d63] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(connection_edge_package_raw_inbuf+0xae) > [0x55651f90b80e] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /usr/bin/tor(connection_edge_process_inbuf+0x6f) [0x55651fa2b9df] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x1c34dd) [0x55651fa2d4dd] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x73ffc) [0x55651f8ddffc] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevent-2.1.so.7(+0x1ff58) [0x7fcee899bf58] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libevent-2.1.so.7(event_base_loop+0x577) > [0x7fcee899d8a7] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(do_main_loop+0x127) > [0x55651f8de7c7] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_run_main+0x215) > [0x55651f8e2805] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_main+0x4d) > [0x55651f8e2c6d] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(main+0x1d) [0x55651f8d4dcd] > (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x29d90) [0x7fcee80a8d90] (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0x80) > [0x7fcee80a8e40] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Bug: /usr/bin/tor(_start+0x25) > [0x55651f8d4e25] (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: conflux_pick_first_leg(): Bug: Matching > client sets: (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: conflux_log_set(): Bug: Conflux > 566550141B144136: 0 linked, 0 launched. Delivered: 75; teardown: > 0; Current: (nil), Previous: (nil) (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 > 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > conflux_pick_first_leg(): Bug: Matching server sets: (on Tor > 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[904715]: > conflux_log_set(): Bug: Conflux 566550141B144136: 0 linked, 0 > launched. Delivered: 75; teardown: 0; Current: (nil), Previous: > (nil) (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: conflux_pick_first_leg(): Bug: End conflux > set dump (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) Dec 21 15:18:48 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: circuit_get_package_window(): Bug: Conflux > has no circuit to send on. Circuit 0x556536e76c20 idx 138 marked > at line ../src/core/or/command.c:663 (on Tor 0.4.8.10 ) ``` It is > then an alternation of these three last messages (Heartbeat + "No > circuits are opened" + bug) until yesterday where I get a series > of these messages: ``` Jan 5 21:58:59 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Failed to find node for hop #1 of our path. > Discarding this circuit. Jan 5 21:58:59 a-n-o-n-y-m-e > Tor-Alberta[904715]: Our circuit 0 (id: 355722) died due to an > invalid selected path, purpose Unlinked conflux circuit. This may > be a torrc configuration issue, or a bug. ``` At this point, I > learned that my relays were down via Tor Weather. I restarted the > relays - even rebooted the whole server - and both relays seem to > be unable to connect to the network. Here's a sample: ``` Jan 6 > 09:44:46 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[5621]: 254 connections have > failed: Jan 6 09:44:46 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[5621]: 254 > connections died in state connect()ing with SSL state (No SSL > object) Jan 6 09:44:46 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Alberta[5621]: Problem > bootstrapping. Stuck at 5% (conn): Connecting to a relay. > (Connection timed out; TIMEOUT; count 256; recommendation warn; > host 65369D044C659CD299E35763914FFD0FC9AD4509 at > 92.205.161.164:80) ``` I also have a bridge on this server > (different IP) and it seems OK ( > https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/7CEB9D16C5218FE1A9BAB 8E8A6EA9471D2E1F9B8 > ). Last messages after the server reboot are: ``` Jan 6 08:34:17 > a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Nestor[998]: Bootstrapped 100% (done): Done Jan > 6 08:35:21 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Nestor[998]: Performing bandwidth > self-test...done. Jan 6 09:54:22 a-n-o-n-y-m-e Tor-Nestor[998]: No > circuits are opened. Relaxed timeout for circuit 527 (a Measuring > circuit timeout 3-hop circuit in state doing handshakes with > channel state open) to 60000ms. However, it appears the circuit > has timed out anyway. ``` I have stopped both relays until I > figure out what is going on. Help would be appreciated. > >

1 0