- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

unbound bogs down strangely, degrading exit relay
by Dhalgren Tor 19 Mar '16

19 Mar '16

Hit a repeat of an earlier incident: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-January/008621.html message from tor daemon is Resolved [scrubbed] which was already resolved; ignoring About 5400 of these messages over 37 hours, during which the relay dropped down to 30% of usual load and did not work for Tor Browser when the exit was specifically set. Unlike the earlier incident, DNSSEC was disabled. Probably the IP address for root-server H was incorrect because it changed in December and 'unbound' was built in September. Just installed and configured the current 'named.root' hints file. Both "iterator" and "validator" modules were loaded, though validation was disabled. Changed the config to load only "iterator". Unbound 1.5.4, tor 0.2.6.10. Running 164 days. If I see this again I'm planning to attempt purging the 'unbound' request queue with unbound-control dump_requestlist >reqlist.snap unbound-control flush_requestlist and if that doesn't work, bouncing 'unbound' without stopping the 'tor' daemon. Interesting stats were recorded, starting with the good pre-incident entries: Mar 11 05:53 notice: sendto failed: Invalid argument notice: remote address is 0.0.0.1 port 53 ...repeated 4 times Mar 15 17:45 server stats for thread: 1029423 queries, 415824 answers from cache, 613599 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 132 avg 22.5692 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 4.070100 sec Mar 16 05:46 Resolved [scrubbed] which was already resolved; ignoring Mar 16 17:45 server stats for thread: 1162172 queries, 287662 answers from cache, 874510 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 421 avg 198.684 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 25.833646 sec Mar 16 21:08 notice: sendto failed: Invalid argument notice: remote address is 0.0.0.1 port 53 ...repeated 4 times Mar 17 16:52 notice: sendto failed: Invalid argument notice: remote address is 0.0.0.1 port 53 ...repeated 4 times Mar 17 17:45 server stats for thread: 1078496 queries, 144557 answers from cache, 933939 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 459 avg 296.668 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 40.621863 sec service stopped (unbound 1.5.4). Mar 17 19:28 server stats for thread: 53991 queries, 3455 answers from cache, 50536 recursions, 0 prefetch server stats for thread: requestlist max 342 avg 290.977 exceeded 0 jostled 0 average recursion processing time 35.947563 sec If anyone has seen this or knows anything please comment. Tried searching but came up with nothing but thread referenced above.

2 5

Re: [tor-relays] Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:29:58 +0000, you wrote: > > Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tor-relays-owner(a)lists.torproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net) > 2. Re: Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (Daryl Styrk) > 3. Re: Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (s7r) > 4. Re: Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically (Sebastian Niehaus) > 5. Re: Running 5000 relays... (Brian 'redbeard' Harrington) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:45:06 +0200 > From: s7r <s7r(a)sky-ip.org> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically > Message-ID: <56E6F8A2.5030903(a)sky-ip.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hello, > > Your relay seams fine on atlas: > > http://atlas777hhh7mcs7.onion/#details/A290A9E71ADFC2FB1C80E64EF851A4B90545… > > > It has an observed bandwidth of 582.23 KB/s > Advertised bandwidth of 512 KB/s > and burst 716.8 KB/s > > Which is exactly as per your configuration. > > The consensus weight is 613, which is totally normal for this value of > observed bandwidth. > > Tip: if you are on a limited bandwidth plan, better set AccountingMax > and do not cap the speed via RelayBandwidthRate / RelayBandwidthBurst. > Instead let it run at its maximum speed for less than an entire month > rather than capping it to few KB/s to ensure maximum n GB/TB are > consumed within a month. > In a previous post someone recommended that I try to reduce my bandwidth to allow my relay to stay active 24/7 x 31 days. This is why I removed the AccountingMax setting and reduced my RelayBandwidthRate to 500kb/s and RelayBandwidthBurst to 700kb/s. What concerns me is that while running arm in graph mode, I rarely see the bandwidth rate steadily flow around 500kb/s. With a 3tb bandwidth limit per month, following your recommendations, would you recommend that my AccountingMax be set to 55gb per day up and down and turn off RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst? This will probably mean that the bandwidth will be used up within the first 10-12 hours of each day and my relay will be in hibernation for the remaining portion of that 24 hours. This hibernation period appears to affect the uptime statistics, which means my middle consensus numbers will drop as a consequence. I'm trying to figure out what's the secret sauce here to keep the relay running 24/7 and stay within my 3tb bandwidth limitation. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW5yi+AAoJEH1gNwhiMDZubTgQAJuj6EdfLZsyPsLxfeiLA2nh w52jJLO3yXg+InJ4IzoSaHzbXsqdUuSmj7RxOsgTr9K1xflX3XkdNmlWYkhs005F JNMGyglnOb3LlSbJ9fxspZH1KOhwJwy9ZJrHGRqVRXrAC7VBMpJ016TEcFNL3daL J98LhZuyN5Iecm0k9LhuxoZ0YfnCc03qpkUJDMiM0khsXfoesFWd+Zdss/Igj2aC mVcE+BMKvO8gHATdVytvHvqqZ07unIAV6mRkw/c/NBqRh07xX6qEJwoDANCEvfS6 7NGQZpgEVWw2lT2GPj5T4WGmEPN6CAfCJTE7fJG1IA1j4iLNgHwRM7kKxQpFWpVa CAwE8wgc9BxFYCVg8Kzjr/PDJO7mNLFRH3yXXJ9dTo6qS+GRxdZEYTH6FaNc9ERP W9/hnv18bo0IuQ+o8+sMtzDbAbyyPXDeSbx2qHOzxuTJkzLPkq2t8W2HX5kiurZ8 MIkdkJH+bc71EwV1YBzb/Ca4/kdqTRqEMJzXFtn8wq6fa1uRxDC1S7Su374y4fTy C1OmTfURhKhK39yVFVJrKqINsgE1GQnKikE2DCMlbrp+IFaItrDOg+gx81mO7WkK /KbpxnKJotLxIxBX12j0T6CYyGKQio6SSTbI0iObsXJNpEkQCX+jPp3GDDcWPzlK p/XtNor8MXQS1u96hpwP =z+T6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Bandwidth Fallen Off Drastically
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have been watching my middle relay for the past four days and I can't figure out why my bandwidth has gone to hell. I have RelayBandwidthRate at 500 KB and RelayBandwidthBurst at 700 KB, but my bandwidth has fallen almost down to zero. I have removed the AccountingMax setting so it should be available for service, but it appears to be sitting idle. fingerprint is 'stealth A290A9E71ADFC2FB1C80E64EF851A4B905450105' Tor Version 0.2.7.6 Debian 7.0 1 Meg of Memory on VPS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW5t3wAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuSasQAKQ0PQrNqqVl2x0nhKUPvZTz xCffMMmDeE+xU3QvMhGDxuliIJVgxuP0jqtXzZ6Vrxr9QQ4f7XwuK057O8PD9nnq B5UsYXjoV/2VsDgv0n+mOv3LmQB2CJv/GJzSnl4/ZYaW8k76P0FavS6HHpZKnM6T g5ybxnscpiSbP6GO1ZuK3cRxDfTFtoh80HsShgDG7VAOHPzyFNz4diKQJ3J5LQe5 1QDvFB6l4VUZTCN9++2NvwLkvIGS9xMeX4TOOVwwV9lZDmU+aE0zH3EkIJrnhjv4 tToyypxCCTLkgTN6BkFTF7Ug07H4oqs0J09SWkLT6XUsvm+QSf7dL2Nzujp1KkYl yuZLqkpxgtgUPde3Ejcdgzy9Zv3y+j89f+JavAWy5VAQ5779V8nKonYclINROpcX 2PlOuE4GvrOrurUQzQJJfvSkWEF3NNJjvrAZGyM6X79v/F6/zod1QV5a0/ASUY5g vNUbLQfjGHExf86UZRak1un1x4/yzESnddZPHWALcNR/JHQHgra7+283RHqVNxeX 7zggM+HNxIxKYngC4B4V+9hZnuXE8Ty2444ykXNrZibQSDiFf5RIBBffmbRtJxzJ K/Jrdw9VyajNPx4AnV+gnh611+bgNw9Rpo1WKHd0KOdeLhKUC8js1ZvZpiPpqojR CPkUwxBAh8Ydt4HEp3Mw =jZnl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 62, Issue 13
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:16:18 +0000, you wrote: > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:08:31 +1100 > From: Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345(a)gmail.com> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Hibernation Expectations > Message-ID: <6449D528-F52E-49E6-8331-0F3276365348(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On 9 Mar 2016, at 05:29, stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net wrote: > > > > Signed PGP part > > I am allocating 100gb of bandwidth up and down every day. When my > > middle relay goes into hibernation, should I expect my stats to go > > to hell? Should I also expect my flags my stable and guard flags to > > be removed? > > Yes, but they'll come back eventually. > > > > > If I reach my bandwidth restrictions 10 hours before it is reset, > > is this the reason why the relay would lose guard and stable flags? > > I may need to restrict my bandwidth to 60gb up and down as I only > > have 3tb of bandwidth to donate on a monthly basis. > > This is another question we see frequently. > Until we get a FAQ or wiki entry for it, I'd encourage you to search the list archives for previous answers. > > There are good reasons to run a relay that's always on. > Then again, there are also good reasons to run a fast relay. > If you're very close to your bandwidth cutoff, why not decrease it slightly, and run all the time? > > Tim I have changed my AccountingMax to 60gb and my RelayBandwidthRate to 5mb and my RelayBandwidthBurst to 10mb. I will monitor these settings for the next couple of days to see, if I reach my AccountingMax number. If I do reach the AccountingMax number then I will reduce the RelayBandwidthRate and RelaybandwidthBurst down until my server can run 24/7. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW4G4MAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZu8bsP/3j4GYhUKZMZbnm2+i+7XJ5C vGWxQgHC/7bMe5zuQY7CjHuPZRjqNImbQTy8FPLb1NGKuutVS1RcQafDvTVBUJiL a64dTCAAbf12AScSxCzhqgBpWQ1nW2mKRPTeGUOrkeCPgx3o/Cqby5U3fL0Hcy3R lhrTWOlca3waJDnpNzlslMgXVLhoR+cspflKoi+NzFoanHDveipkcZEr65cIBoWJ QlYcfH0CE1070W68DatwtNzyQW7Mm9bMULX8aWJQpjMIvd/GKZ6OGGysXjgLDbDN x2b7/VcHuxNXaVJSbhdenoA2GoF1h02Sl9K1QUMVo46LqVfsJiZduSmvB4EJz9VA KsMmTc3C51Mp3EgdH538gP9lfNA/PhT/1KrHFz9ILnC0sy9E8zxHzpk9+Lt7652/ PTaeVE0+1epAVG3namxaMLiK36gOUD4xuGi3UP18U2s7UzlaesEusSie6j+wHZid /D3pQTE50Mj7eb4yxLziBU/DS3UB4FwhRphCKqnB/ZdJWbMZ88hAfwfcgxmTjvB0 7fZ6wtZDsdAqWPOTzRlkEVifS1ZcS0WgT2FGSmzBbUH7/hT9YTuKdHelUNrYBJy+ 3b5A+6/kMCBUV0bJjiUirINATG0XJDGoYmSjFm/Z7ac/vfOh+TXzTwiG+yITJ1cA FuaKL42rov2Ier2nWnYu =BnNF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Hibernation Expectations
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am allocating 100gb of bandwidth up and down every day. When my middle relay goes into hibernation, should I expect my stats to go to hell? Should I also expect my flags my stable and guard flags to be removed? If I reach my bandwidth restrictions 10 hours before it is reset, is this the reason why the relay would lose guard and stable flags? I may need to restrict my bandwidth to 60gb up and down as I only have 3tb of bandwidth to donate on a monthly basis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW3w91AAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuPo0P/2jKTt3DAX6pFIU70nTl55IE RxgP45KZnv7RmqLPN5T4UAKl7BmuhWLDY7uIRzfoagersXNXbWrcvRZrpGR8Eycf OS4jNjw0WPX3AgzmU0XeIkPypu2vJ1Qdz3dfRsNiguwUPwPHvGE9d6yKp/3DztYs rtBcWQ0yiCn3vDLgEHSjyUop35lJla9Rg1l7DWgfJEKc+6zqOMsLod5Ie0ZVETOY b8gmP0Ct9Bqyzj9zHlXbEgk0M9t7f2g/cOkX1G3ABBQVMe83rcssNPodDy8xFpYm AA0K6LmUzz94kxhmu/wzph48PRsm5cdr4mAXbDkKkVlQxszHCGZqbMR2Zdff6txh GGSb8AdXX7eTzsIAJ8eDN2ZsWsneuKiofvXY2oSyuOpgl+jeHxivXJoYunXvEQER rikVhoZkn0X4hotNzIAWdEQgifmfxhGXuphytHNphCFkCY5I6UY+HNLjcZTl+9OH vytFYvpy/zc5zEjHhrM6FWxXYSgBCL34jo0L9Hr6dqDYD4pPBf/Td2CiBXdNEliK tD+JYlH9gFQ/TmNePef9za1vWF0t+8QlpsZYqTZ3xuHYN24Znjdnklr+nbIlrUTp 9tpibQ4MisX781wadp0OCqePmxZjyiwnZEHxHNlW6KcrvP37kXTmIFdybUZV6eYx equ2uTmOQ9EzuJidfxO4 =zOMH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Ticket #18489
by Felix 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

Hi I stumbled over [1]. As I operate Doedel26 I checked DownloadExtraInfo was default. After change in torrc to 1 and reload 'cached-extrainfo' showed up in /var/db/tor/. Can someone please advice how to deal with it ? Best regards, Felix [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18489

3 2

relay maintenance without losing consensus weight?
by Zwiebel 09 Mar '16

09 Mar '16

Hello, is there a way to shut down Tor relays for a short time without losing consensus weight or bandwidth? Last week I installed a newer Tor version and added more RAM and now my relays lost a third of their bandwidth. Last time I've upgraded the hardware was in January and the relays didn't fully recover from the downtime in the last two months. I'd gladly provide 200Mb/s+ of relay bandwidth if I could, but Tor won't let me. - Zwiebel

5 6

Northeastern University Relays
by nusenu 08 Mar '16

08 Mar '16

Thanks for adding relays! Maybe set a contactinfo? (Whenever a university adds an unusual amount of relays it reminds me of the CMU case though.) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.onion-routing.ornetradar/1030 (I'm not implying they are doing anything bad)

2 2

misconfig resolution for Tor startup on linux?
by torserver＠datakanja.de 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Last week, i had been erroneously assuming, the daily reassigned external IP addresses from my provider would kill Tor, as someone suggested in the IRC. So i ran a quick "sudo update-rc.d tor disable". Only later, when i learned, the IP change doesnt cause too much trouble, i reenabled Tor. Since then, the tor service doesnt come up on computer startup any longer. I tried all kind of things, like: sudo update-rc.d tor enable sudo update-rc.d tor defaults i even reinstalled Tor completely, but the service does not start automatically any longer. After finding this to be true, i began to start it manually after each reboot like so: sudo service tor start # this does in fact cause the service to run as debian-tor user, as it should! Unfortunately, it is necessary to reboot from time to time, to prevent acceleration in memory fragmentation caused by several programs i use on a daily basis. If not prevented, the latter causes system instabilities and introduces severe risk of data corruption. So back to the basics: i am just a simple Ubuntu user with a machine, that is connected and running basically 24/7 (except for the daily disconnect, as can be seen from the logs). And i would certainly appreciate any suggestion to check for, why upstart doesnt pick up Tor, as it should. From my own understanding, eveything looks pretty normal, like: find /etc -name ?20tor | xargs ls -l lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc0.d/K20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc1.d/K20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc2.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc3.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc4.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc5.d/S20tor -> ../init.d/tor lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Mär 4 04:19 /etc/rc6.d/K20tor -> ../init.d/tor Sorry for asking such an unadorned question here, i simply ran out of ideas. :-( NewTorKidOnTheBlock

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Guard Status vs Middle
by starlight.2016q1＠binnacle.cx 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

>If your relay has been given guard status does this mean that >one's middle status is put on hold or can a relay be in guard >and middle status at the same time? Guard-flagged relays are both middle and guard nodes. Take a look at the relay in https://atlas.torproject.org/ and https://globe.torproject.org/ to see graph-lines of the probabalities

1 0

Guard Status vs Middle
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 If your relay has been given guard status does this mean that one's middle status is put on hold or can a relay be in guard and middle status at the same time? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW2homAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuGMAP/335WjiHWFV0XAmUYjowrwwM griNn3j13mUEQXYlNCDeL7lH8QUCf4DYM7zywgJm4VSz/sJyPl8lzO4hJeS09fte Emf4adSxMTrj5/jh+/S8zbVY5iDVfCZISw/5jOsBm3CR7QgarvhSFLOHhPQukr9O gQDo90ViVdz6NeVaDqYFzaFFvN3buN7kkuuN9ZGjNHttfY3AG3Rrx5X4LktkMmRH ZE0Y3B3aYBUlxvdG3oXrPo6JMaSd5ABMxWaj/LucRG2zvOPgUE8v8i4RaFNgnrFB oSCJYFLP8GpLrEUS50WUH5wiM915oWif3Y4TPSsrFanxAeFpboudaqfE7H1GjjBs 7tio+bbzMISjIdI9JFrd4GnOrLSqpe+44ooEA0pjNajiIaYhsOEXhTP4A+vktkcg lmAjK/SrjrNyuSwnpkKx24mw9H9JCWDmm15VFk+t0mloTsxnT0242YrChtAtcEft Qiv+f0Yo3Iek9FP573iq131xDg8/V10GvJnlSo7Zl/IJiQQW9KOzdOaQrIOlSjPr Aw9PWLlBoyeMd4LlRtwFUIKjpJMbSh2QXb+EbLwqoHDK0UAHyjKp+UXMvzb8WKoE rIiu9SV/X0QPmJEYw9HBy9ZDihYaWg69ndE37lb9lvPECDtmrRmcLhY0/1aSKnSU UG8ybdzEVLkfspNWjfex =JSaf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Release of TheOnionBox v2!
by Ralph Wetzel 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

1 0

biggest guard operator apparently left the tor network
by nusenu 03 Mar '16

03 Mar '16

4 4

Network Bandwidth Fine Tuning
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I ran the speedtest on my VPS which gave the results below: root$ speedtest-cli Retrieving speedtest.net configuration... Retrieving speedtest.net server list... Testing from ProServe B.V. (81.4.111.251)... Selecting best server based on latency... Hosted by NFOrce Entertainment B.V. (Amsterdam) [0.00 km]: 4.817 ms Testing download speed........................................ Download: 711.10 Mbit/s Testing upload speed.................................................. Upload: 449.12 Mbit/s My Bandwidth results are averaging around 1.5mbs to 3.0mbs via the Tor Globe Stats page. Can someone tell me how to increase my network bandwidth based on what I am capable of uploading and downloading. I am allocated 2TB of bandwidth per month from my VPS Right now the Advertised Bandwidth is 1.7MB/s and when I scroll down further on the page in the Bandwidth section my "mean written bytes" are 226.15 kb/s and my "mean read bytes" are 227.1 kbs/s I see several sites averaging 50MB/s-60MB/s on the Top Ten Relays list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW0iFwAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuT60P/jt6YmdvtjR48zhe/fQ2sx4z Uw76B+vjonWqKOaCqyJFBM/buFoXUixTJJ6ksj/KjiVVEdTU4/7WhbwwYTUWGYyc tYhB7nWCxdCNKPy4YMNUG3r+pIaMp1gF+k6wfnHHU+Pqq0H9tTMPNS0Ey44fM0bN BaX2NjuDYpOXDkmKO8xAzKv+KQr9a6pR/DBgC73LniqiZejV3iyMvof7/hypvltq h3QJoFZ8DYjCgk+W0qEWhjCky5RFze1f8ihFsVaM7U8WH6hGcULgXAYZl8Q/MAmN 4jlSogFDSh/e/+0DqVyrkgpyxIPZ43/4y2sn2WYfR8egeocVi6NO9VHtiiygUtcn jOAzaGROGtW6oXNQtGvfeJRwAEsoPmfHF09TJANRB++/KjjSm+cM/ALT1O4b3t5U ZMC5rkoJOUX2jyo3kZpBpobLOW012BnnbGyVV5KNM/BpVkM1sIxOnFhoSfYWij5c QziOvk5wtDXFta2ow12lgruW9wT2moier1WxAxib6u9V05jxckXrpmb3V9yvWBOz SzXh05lh7pEuAfPb2RQXKjGjmkqCweOI2cGhu4B3vDFNKRBhjdXYFZP7/aFe4DRh +J4su48cYVWcnav0c14/27oHxeoYUD8NQV2gBcs7/dCSa1iWHV+PORjBSe+l+IGG R2qL40EDeIgC9TVJqriD =c73J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 9

Stopping the censoring of tor users (via exit bridges / proxies / OpenVPNs)
by grarpamp 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

On 2/25/16, blacklight . <pandakaasftw(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hello there! i don't know if this mailing list works but i thought of > giving it a try. > > i was lately reading an article ( > http://www.pcworld.com/article/3037180/security/tor-users-increasingly-trea… > ) > and it was about tor users getting blocked from accessing alot of website. > but after giving this some thought i think i came up with a possible > solution to the problem :there is a thing called bridges, they are used to > access the tor network without your isp knowing that you use tor, but if > you can use those proxies to enter the network, it might also be possible > to exit the network with them. But then we face a second challenge, the > exit nodes have to be configured in such a way that it will relay traffic > to such a bridge, so the exit node owners also need to know the ip of the > bridge. While this doesn't seem difficult to do, it can become difficult. > You see if the bridges are published on a public list(like normal bridges > are) then the blocking sites in question will be able to block those > address too. While this also posses a problem, a possible solution could be > found in something called flashproxies, flashproxies are bridges with a > really short life span, they are created and destroyed fairly swiftly, when > this is done in a rapid pace, they become really hard to block because the > ip changes all the time. So if the exit nodes can be configured to make use > of such flash proxies, then the problem could be solved. I Must admit that > not an expert on this or anything, and it needs alot of more thought, but > it could work. so i was wondering if there are any experts who could help > me with thinking out this subject and maybe confirm if this idea could > work. Skipping that whoever wants to enumerate, test, block, and share lists of the IP of your final hop will find a way to do so... "flashproxies" - are essentially illegal to use as the operator got stupid, and didn't gave permission. - are unstable as were never intentionally provisioned, and the operators get smart when abuse reports and shut them off. - proxy lists are going to be a pain for you to scrape and maintain Options - run your own volunteer network of last hop "proxies" / bridges - buy them from AWS or wherever "meek" style - partner with or plug into already existing networks of those - get tor relays or bridges to do this I previously wrote in archives that exit relays could bind OpenVPN to extra IP's they configure on their exit relay boxes. Tor daemon has nothing to do with those IP so they never appear in tor's easily blacklistable consensus. Users then OpenVPN over tor to those via use of the relay fingerprint to reach vpn terminator IP over relay localhost to save bandwidth, and on out to clearnet. You can OpenVPN to some list of onions if you don't feel like listing the relay fingerprints / extra input IP's on wikis. But it's not going to stop dedicated blacklisters, and onion doubles bandwidth use. However it could also be used by non-exits that for whatever reason didn't want to be a tor-exit but did want to offer exit via some remote third party vpn service. And strictly social sharing on forums etc could happen for distribution. There are already some exits that for various reasons, intentional or other, do not exit from their OR IP. That is a feature that some tor users do now find and use. And relays don't offer OpenVPN yet which would also give users more than just IPv4-TCP exit scheme. Though it is integrated somewhat, I2P has this manual sort of exit offering model with false.i2p and a few other nodes. [Doesn't seem to require daemon dev work, updated subject, continuing thread reply to relays and talk.]

1 0

What do the huge providers have to do within tor circuits?
by torserver＠datakanja.de 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hello, slowly getting acquainted with running a Tor relay, i am wondering: >From my gathering, tor is - at times - connecting to many instances of akamai CDN services, amazonaws, and other similar services simultaneously. When i say many instances, i mean: a saw a peak exposure of 30 outgoing ports from my server all going to the above 2 alone (as gathered by iftop. I didn't set up snort just yet). This is seen on a NON-Exit-relay and is troubling me: I am aware of Akamai being the premier CDN provider, serving around 30% of internet traffic alone. Their server power, manpower and know-how is huge. And their ability to draw information from any sort of internet traffic is unparalleled. >From my outsider's perspective, they are in the process of building the tools to effectively dismantle the means and purpose of the Tor network at large. That is what is giving me chills, when i watch them acting from inside the circuits. Clearly, they would be able to hide their identity while doing so. And since they aren't, i may be getting something wrong. So that is why i am asking you: Does anyone KNOW, what is going on? NewTorKidOnTheBlock

2 1

default exit notice
by Markus Koch 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Does anyone have the exit notice in japanese? markus

1 0

Any known Tor relay seizures (in Germany)?
by Thomas 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Hello everybody, do you know of any relay seizures of non-exit relays? In the legal FAQ [1] this "risk" is only listed below exit relays. Have there been any of such events in Germany (either exit- or any other nodes)? Would I have to worry about seizures if I run a guard or middle relay in Germany? Regards, Thomas [1] https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 20:21:45 +0000, you wrote: > > > On 28 Feb 2016, at 21:17, stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net wrote: > > > > > Is your OpenSSL compiled optimised for your processor and for the encryption that Tor uses? > > > > > > > I am using the OpenSSL that was compiled for my version of > > Mixmaster as I am running a middle remailer on the same VPS. It is > > OpenSSL: 1.0.1e > > Does Tor log a message when it starts recommending an optimised version of OpenSSL? > There are no references in my notices.log and my .log file is empty. I will temporarily change my log level to debug and see what it shows. > > > How much RAM does your VPS have? > > 512KB > > This is likely to be your issue. 512 MB is not enough for a large relay. > Tor will limit its memory and connections to stay under about 3/4 of the memory you have. > Try 1GB. > > Tim Thanks for advice. Unfortunately upgrading to 1gb is not an option for me. Right now it appears that Tor is not using anywhere near what is available in memory as evidenced by my top command. top - 12:49:36 up 5 days, 20:32, 2 users, load average: 0.05, 0.09, 0.08 Tasks: 70 total, 1 running, 69 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie %Cpu(s): 1.3 us, 0.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 98.2 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st KiB Mem: 524288 total, 198400 used, 325888 free, 0 buffers KiB Swap: 524288 total, 0 used, 524288 free, 37620 cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2535 debian-t 20 0 99116 69m 2980 S 3.3 13.5 125:37.86 tor 2422 root 20 0 131m 5108 1080 S 0.3 1.0 5:04.66 fail2ban-server 16014 debian-t 20 0 107m 22m 2516 S 0.3 4.5 6:21.65 arm > > Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) > No response necessary. Thanks for your feedback Tim. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW01+NAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuctQQAKtZM7sQpue4+SpW+o0hdvpO I6XLk9YWHTszJehj5Gk3ik01yBdBiOgD2SJ2rx/cjR4AnRkRyjN6LOt3g/KxnTYI 4FNGo4fygYn4Oeu+HXmtEey3wyCVxWAzsmCXGNO6LhZhupfdmlv/ftcvcGI9VrJQ wNZTW7QeHpUCJLBt9fbh7Drw+MNwLycwHdmV5kvCWWGK1vqzpWOK44Wmk4lz5+lv ung5/HRHpt865SkXp0l/+w+p4qgTSgZ3thXpqtH1mHQPt52n4PKdUDF3Mf1yXYuf JdOTBNThzZ4s4KNj3cdWH4Wf3wPwpIZ5zCZQ2O+osMpTeOSTOZHwPmStNFdM/CuH OtLxJQb5TaVoUjOqzfcetMbx/5JlT1cutDOL5fVCiGSJ7j6q+FekknkrtKxtIKdU gUobGBJ1u8Ei7axaR7rwcL3egouugQYfDHEEFZdYBBW0tgeNx8l6SCEt7IfqEqhW Fmy58WUBs27ei9dnl9I/xq2V9FYBjdN4tpis22wctife/hth8hJWsMTLJYqP7qj9 9jqcJCgs7b7tkQsem72ApWMAgYnXVCMYscnPKTWdCEw9rdiarmArgPfE0AYuo6Lq NIVg4IADmc/X4Y1SUKq/bYW5vkfIhHKA4aoZUZRj2AL6dcLtj5clAL9MnmyKDB7a 1Ie9DF8NEKkTldYHh5IN =o3VV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Tor Process Being Killed on VPS
by Stephen R Guglielmo 28 Feb '16

28 Feb '16

Hello, I have a VPS with 512 MB RAM. I run nothing on it except nginx and a Tor relay. The relay is an entry guard and moves about 20 MB/s. It seems that the kernel is killing the Tor process with "out of memory" errors. Are there any tips for mitigating this? I don't have the money right now to upgrade to the next higher VPS plan which has more RAM, unfortunately. Maybe there's some config settings that I can modify to limit the RAM usage? Or, am I just out of luck? Thanks, Steve

10 12

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 61, Issue 41
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 28 Feb '16

28 Feb '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:49:20 +0000, you wrote: > > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 12:02:13 +0100 > From: Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345(a)gmail.com> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Network Bandwidth Fine Tuning > Message-ID: <A09CFFB4-5ACA-44B4-B813-7DC0B30A4C06(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On 28 Feb 2016, at 02:14, stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net wrote: > > > > What processor is on your VPS? Here is my lscpu output: root$ lscpu Architecture: i686 CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 8 Vendor ID: GenuineIntel CPU family: 6 Model: 58 Stepping: 9 CPU MHz: 3300.152 BogoMIPS: 6600.30 Virtualization: VT-x > How fast is it? See above > Does it have AES-NI? I believe so. Here's the output from: grep -o aes /proc/cpuinfo aes aes and here's the output from: grep -ml -o aes /proc/cpuinfo aes > Is your OpenSSL compiled optimised for your processor and for the encryption that Tor uses? > I am using the OpenSSL that was compiled for my version of Mixmaster as I am running a middle remailer on the same VPS. It is OpenSSL: 1.0.1e > How much RAM does your VPS have? 512KB > > Have you read the torservers.net Tor tuning advice? Yes I have made several modifications to my RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst. I have also modified my AccountingMax number. Here's the pertinent information from my torrc file: RelayBandwidthRate 50 MB # Throttle traffic to 100KB/s (800Kbps) RelayBandwidthBurst 80 MB # But allow bursts up to 200KB/s (1600Kbps) AccountingMax 100 GB > (And similar articles?) Any additional links would be welcomed. > > Tim > > Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW00AMAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZu2wYQAImPETHwRvlxrlAclulMlB+n WwPB/fMSjiVwA9Rllb7w8NvSbf2Tu9FmeGoYOUDYTWuq93RsUuQFtVvcw3MXkzBR X/TXAdP9WSDlNiOZajaRNR1hcYQJ0gJqJ9/6oyC1XoDNTK7bcE3FOY5ui10M+fFL rXgM/qBmu+toaqA2vL4DKp3eFYMYDgVmesQLEI6edUvHjK4+itdV9pRwXAvQaFjJ M7We374Siw6izM6cJqXtW3XytUCfIbVyzL+Al93fEJnJDaO5V3kIlHDkjcWJn9ev Ogvg1/zZouwfFFJfC1p29NTsEzy8aF+w3obtq6NWQ0/pzTXJ/sPYIE21EHRIuMJo J2Rk9YPVwp5ckIKH48Eg6jdGjNCI6rs59hhNJfvismvJES+NjgLoqJ+Y59ZnhMjr q4rUssRxyzDFqDdBM60llXfTOh0qEFeHDkeBMfR+F4TJH8SZeEBXW3kyFnG6TH6R D/BoV9ItHi7qXiP9zDIMHTSCz7NNJ210uVdHbMUkMH1He+5bB/auCNRcjXmPwbYg kwbzJlgumSSd4kKufEnvC9KQComniYph90yDr8pOBnCE5E/o8+yVfB7XmTLidNEG Ii/xhSKpdt+E7wQX3ISR2pbJ73tk+FaSd2iPVK0jPWab/zoGqVzZr41VFAWi8n6S tuuLxJ5Lum3gu7EH6M0X =h78g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Hidden Service on several relays + same .onion
by Pierre L. 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Hey all, Thinking about having fun with hidden-service webhosting on few relays. If I'm not wrong : Host DNS name .onion of a server is stored in the file /var/lib/tor/hidden_service/hostname, there's another file private_key... So my idea is to host the same website on 2 relays with different WAN IP, fingerprint, etc....... But if I copy those 2 files "hostname" + "private_key" on 2 or 3....... relays, will it be ok ? With this set up, if 1 relay is down, the 2nd can be reachable with the same .onion DNS name ? Will this failover method work, or will be it a mess with 2-3 relays with the same .onion name ? Do someone have tried this ? Thx all!

2 2

Notices.Log Message
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Can someone explain the message below regarding bw_accounting and the lack of a master identity key in my notices.log file? [warn] Failed to unlink /var/lib/tor/bw_accounting: No such file or directory Feb 26 10:04:02.000 [notice] It looks like I need to generate and sign a new medium-term signing key, because I don't have one. To do that, I need to load (or create) the permanent master identity key. Feb 26 10:04:02.000 [notice] Your Tor server's identity key fingerprint is 'stealth A290A9E71ADFC2FB1C80E64EF851A4B905450105' Tor Version 0.2.7.6 (Installed today) Debian 7.0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW0N8pAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZuSl0QAKeE6APr57XI44RJxKEV/zLC 75DQRZCqdsQh5ReQ+qODFvZ/t+on+/XTFBm7gX0Lit2ylEQEyvmUQpXRWwl4pEH0 ZZh2EGND1phHqn7v2wmlWruEWor+ittYyYp4o2a8RIj4Ed07XEnIcTfTX0WzXXBE khj/FPDnzG60CceYld1ZLFhBuYLCl3gjG0RY9HJFh+rXfsrlrvSSuEYOzOgWdlCW +Ethj62CKEXAkaJDMziR0pLXHbkH5rUqIaI0v8F0C6BrrNzwvydWgnaQjZ0z2OpW CW2O6BCgLsLqmHZThl9QAuqGSPN9v4hTez8fR0S58lvf2865jwrsaK3lWm2JSuOU rUxeS46z9qdJdKu/EuB0TbtNU5A+eYIzUuI9Rn6KkslndxywvnVVLLa0yilM8VOR aHIDSa7UzVDFmqqs1um+xeCWZU1y/f2z2WHyBcNO8/TYZ46z6R5pQ/egpPkiROhc ZvduYSeXaWjhUW1xWHZS8At7/P5+MGkfMXj10RWY4Qj2KvQprxgDqj2ar8n4/XCm 61l74W4ybDdyntm+8uNcXFufiRVmHJYf0YtJnXR/a44LR/XyiCh/DWBOlp3dqH8/ arVvpmKae6CDnG+Rk1giu48Uj8CaP60vq6pzO8wbpezB/P3r/KN15g4P3u+5XmfV ye92npDkwAyshyjAJJue =ngF/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Nyx Project Ideas
by Damian Johnson 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Hi wonderful relay operators. It's GSoC season again, where students can be funded to make open source projects like Tor even better! Nyx (previously known as arm [1]) has been my main focus this last year and is inching ever closer to release. For those unfamiliar with it, Nyx is an ncurses monitor for Tor relays providing a bandwidth graph, event log, connections, config editor, and more. Rather than add new features my work has focused on making Nyx simpler and faster, but GSoC provides us an opportunity to do even more. So I'm curious - what do you want from an ncurses monitor? The answer may be 'keep it simple'. Feature creep does us no favors. But if there's a good fit I'd love to mentor a project that makes your lives even better! I'm not overly fond of the ideas I've had so far... * Windows support. This poses a few challenges. [2] * When running multiple tor instances on a single system connect to them all, aggregating the information. So anything come to mind? Cheers! -Damian [1] https://www.atagar.com/arm/ [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/arm#Windows

3 3

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 61, Issue 30
by stealth＠nym.mixmin.net 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:20:38 +0500, you wrote: > > --Sig_/PllBt_/1sHfmWgs/aS1Ks.r > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:24:57 +0000 (GMT) > stealth(a)nym.mixmin.net wrote: > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/tor > > > [2] https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian.html.en > > > > > Thanks for the links above. I have updated to 0.2.7.6. I had a > > hickup initially trying to launch arm as user debian-t. I had to > > kickstart it with just arm and then I killed the program and > > launched it again as user debian-t and it launched. > > The username is debian-tor. Not sure where you're getting "debian-t" from, = > if > from "top", then it might be simply cut off there. > > --=20 > With respect, > Roman > Yes you're right about the debian-tor user name. I was in a hurry when I typed the last post. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW0L/sAAoJEH1gNwhiMDZue1cP/R0Z8Cyn2nERoYWB6qngccoq 6cpAIgdunSLJeT8VvvL6iTwXiIPpy9GqrrloGegHuRrWgPkiood1EmhvNi9cajWQ RRitQVmhCZ9MV7qzMOyGXFZ+J97TgviKeWG+jVJbRSOvqiY88im5InlJhR7smc2f OUaYpwMpm7l6+chSewmy7hRVHLb7jfvWgej8eJc8EJsDAmwnozNrjStqpndRinCn 9gkqzkZEiug1uXJXRS4ZQa3rk087Q9SQkjdYvlI4XfjiQKDKWVMkddDMRpYbo8iR RrKTd01m2i8M2xiG4vDPI+U4T3oOr/6F8XTyvyaz2oziXZDVuRTg9JbDS0a0/wQ8 duiKUpDSNwwrW7+ruS0oJcFD45s5P1GVed9rhDpkDq1KKMF+oNmy/K/vo3uPOLtI lRtVXFq0gsBviZQ3ad+C6epTgMPpF3Yf3Lkpf8vW2jHdypzv3zNZGXfnzzvMVq6d CEGf+/+5C/3N3ZPw4f03tEU2uUzIOCc0E5xYrPktUwRYxn8QNTd39Oc92/deErzH 3kMxY9n42/YEeI0NG/0W8MO1hOQAk1OffbsGfvuZLItPi7LXZY68wEhm6oGDdzI8 alHqXoFHOIMDlnMFNEEpsPg3f5VhE2UtsYUu6JOBHUEQAVHPHavKIPa6UqdCvy8n ER8eCLuvRGpfpe8Hbudt =eEZc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0