- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

guard-failing message
by eliaz 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

My bridge's log showed: Feb 24 02:25:45.940 [Warning] Your Guard < guard name and fp > is failing a very large amount of circuits. Most likely this means the Tor network is overloaded, but it could also mean an attack against you or potentially the guard itself. Success counts are 129/259. Use counts are 38/38. 242 circuits completed, 0 were unusable, 113 collapsed, and 5 timed out. For reference, your timeout cutoff is 60 seconds. Globe showed no 3-day chart for the guard. For my bridge, the chart showed a lot of traffic, the peaks or less than a KB. This pattern has been going on for a few days. The bridge usage display shows the usual traffic, but more anemic the past several days. To be on the safe side I did the following: * shut down the bridge, * reset my gateway address, * restarted the bridge after about 1/2 hour. Have I overreacted? - eliaz

1 0

Same relay (identity key) on two IPs
by catchthemall 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

Hi all, tl;dr: Due to a config error my relay [1] was running on two different IPs at the same time for about half a day. Now the traffic has dropped. I just wanted to make sure that it is not flagged as malicious or something ... Additionally I am curious about the policy in such a case. What happens if a relay shows up in the network with the same identity key but on different IP addresses? long-version (kinda funny): I am using webtropia [2] as a service provide which is, as far I can tell, is a good choice for running a relay. Some time ago I decided to change the hosting plan and switch to another offer at the same provider. For that reason I let my old contract run out until they notified me that my server will be shut down and deleted. After receiving this notification I checked that indeed my relay server was no longer reachable. Some time passed by until I had time to setup my old relay (same identiy key) on the new server. Done so I launched it and was happy to enjoy the increased bandwidth. What I missed was that in the meantime the old server was reactivated by the hosting provider without notifying me and as a result was running at the same time as the new one for about half a day. After I recognised this, I tried to ssh to the old server - which still worked perfectly and indeed confirmed that everything was as I left it. I shut down the relay running on the old server and wrote an e-mail to the hosting provider checking if they are going to charge me the reactivation and why the hell reactivated it. Up until now I only got an response that my old server was "shut down" and that the "hard disk was deleted on the 29.01.2015" ... .. I thought well ... since I can still ssh to that server I kinda doubt that this is the case. So since I still had ssh access to the "shut down server" I decided to setup another relay on the "deleted hard disk" of this machine until they believe me that there exists a small possibility that this thing is still running ... The "ghost" relay [2] is running fine up until now. [1] https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/5A9B5923F4937C3ED76B0AD4CF1030C11FCAF… [2] http://www.webtropia.com/index.php [3] https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/23C31DBBEB898145D6E090D6DD8C06D72E55F…

3 5

Relay Node not acquiring Guard Flag.
by Sebastian Urbach 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

Hi, On 02/23/2015 06:44 PM, Sebastian Urbach wrote: > Because the criterias changed a while ago, only the fastest 25% of the > Relays are Guards anymore. >BTW, what's about minimum uptime ? Details for all the flags can be found here: https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt -- Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations / M.f.G. Sebastian Urbach ----------------------------------------- Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth. ----------------------------------------- Henry Louis Mencken (1880 - 1956), American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist and critic.

2 1

Relay Node not acquiring Guard Flag.
by Beagle Bone 23 Feb '15

23 Feb '15

Hey folks. 3xBT here, admin of the node of the same name. I was wondering why my node has yet to pick up the Guard flag: Fingerprint: D937161730610A5D66BDED6CF4D5C9692566D9FE Feb 23 06:25:05.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.4.24 (git-e3c61213fb2dc49a) opening new log file. Feb 23 06:25:05.000 [notice] Configured to measure directory request statistics, but no GeoIP database found. Please specify a GeoIP database using the GeoIPFile option. Feb 23 06:27:22.000 [notice] Your DNS provider gave an answer for "lya67fieutqf6", which is not supposed to exist. Apparently they are hijacking DNS failures. Trying to correct for this. We've noticed 1 possibly bad addre$ Feb 23 09:57:31.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 59 days 6:02 hours, with 153 circuits open. I've sent 414.64 GB and received 394.25 GB. Feb 23 09:57:31.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 97.080% Feb 23 09:57:31.000 [notice] TLS write overhead: 3% Feb 23 09:57:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 4059/4059 TAP, 3977/3977 NTor. Feb 23 15:02:49.000 [notice] New control connection opened. Feb 23 15:57:31.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 59 days 12:02 hours, with 158 circuits open. I've sent 416.55 GB and received 396.07 GB. Feb 23 15:57:31.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 97.087% Feb 23 15:57:31.000 [notice] TLS write overhead: 3% Feb 23 15:57:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 6032/6033 TAP, 4055/4055 NTor. Feb 23 17:23:54.000 [notice] New control connection opened. Additional info: When traffic is 4Mbit/sec, CPU and memory load is at ~50%. I'm also wondering why the log is only being written when I'm looking at it, and if there was anything I could do to increase usage of allotted bandwidth. -3xBT

3 2

drop in bandwith - because of fail2ban rule?
by tor＠viisauksena.de 23 Feb '15

23 Feb '15

hi i am wondering , because i constantly becoming less and less traffic / or given Bandwidth for a Tor exit relay with a bunch of flags .. the exit is on a debian, vserver with quit a lot of machine power behind, has it own IPv4 and there is also enough bandwidth (i checked this regulary with speedtests or fake downloads of whatever distros) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/2AC2306BD625A9DD75532886842C268C3CDBB… i didnt change anything in configuration, beside one small thing after getting dozens of apache errorcode 504 port 80 and 443 to the Tor-IPv4.. and so i startet to make a fail2ban rule, because this doesnt make sense, also this comes often from a variety aof IPv4 en block from russia, china, korea (mostly) - so i optet for fail2ban more than ignoring these errors. This is the only thing i could imagine which connects to the network drop (ok some internet police whitehat watchers argue there is bad traffic here and than .. but this is "normal" i guessed for tor-exit) So i turned my rule of some 2-3 days, to see if this makes the drop in bandwidth - no effect. So i restartet back the fail2ban rule. So my question - tor hides in port 80 / 443 traffic - is this what i mistakingly block / or interfere .. or how this drop from near 14 Mb to 1,9 Mb is explainable? (while normal traffic on server goes well) thx, viisauksena (for completeness example of logoutput and fail2ban-regex ) # basicly i want to stop these lines # default-178_254_XXXXXX:443 104.245.96.249 - - [10/Feb/2015:16:52:07 +0100] "GET /" 400 549 "-" "-" [Definition] failregex = [^ ]+ <HOST>.*"GET /" 400 5[0-9][0-9]

1 0

Strong bumps in traffic with 0.2.6.3
by Christian Sturm 22 Feb '15

22 Feb '15

Hello, I noticed on my Tor relay that deploying 0.2.6.3 resulted in the bandwidth going up an down a lot which can be seen here: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/CE75BF0972ADD52AF8807602374E495C815DB3… It looks like I am not the only one. This CCC hosted relay (different OS, provider, etc.) appears to have the same thing happening: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/9BDF3EEA1D33AA58A2EEA9E6CA58FB8A667288… It is hard to filter relays per version right now (maybe something onionoo could support?). Are others experiencing the same problems?

3 3

Running obfs4proxy on Debian Stable
by isis 22 Feb '15

22 Feb '15

Hello, I requested that the obfs4proxy package in Debian jessie be ported to wheezy-backports, [0] however, it seems this is extremely unlikely to happen because it would mean backporting pretty much every Golang package in existence. I would be super stoked if we could make it as easy and seamless as possible for the Bridge operators who are still running obfs2 (!!) to move to supporting better, newer Pluggable Transports. Currently recommended PTs to run are: obfs3, obfs4, scramblesuit, and fteproxy. When Tor Browser 4.5 becomes stable (probably in mid-April 2015), we'll want lots more obfs4 Bridges! For the super adventurous sysadmins who'd like to try Yawning's experimental new post-quantum PT, Basket [1] is one of the newest PTs. We should probably come up with some easy instructions for operators of Tor Bridge relays who are running Debian stable, such as adding an Apt pin to pull in only the obfs4proxy package and its dependencies from Debian jessie and keep everything else pinned to stable. If someone has done this, or has another simple solution, would you mind writing up some short how-to on the steps you took, please? [0]: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-anonymity-tools/Week-of-Mon-20… [1]: https://github.com/yawning/basket -- ♥Ⓐ isis agora lovecruft _________________________________________________________ OpenPGP: 4096R/0A6A58A14B5946ABDE18E207A3ADB67A2CDB8B35 Current Keys: https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/isis.txt

5 10

Tor relay only IPV6
by cmar433＠yandex.com 21 Feb '15

21 Feb '15

Hello, i try to run tor as relay .. but i have not any ipv4 adress.. is there any posibilities run tor as realy only for ipv6 adress ? for me seems is not functioning. (Debian wheezy) port 9001 is open but "conection refused" if i try IPV6 portscan I try open 22 only for test trough IPV6 portscan .. ist OK . port opened Any IDEA ? Thanks

4 4

load balance across multiple WAN?
by Rupert Roe 21 Feb '15

21 Feb '15

Hi, I currently run this middle node from a residental VDSL connection: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/D0D6992508E64E28A77373B82798AB196BFA5… I am currently limited by the upload speed of my connection (~20MBit), I was wondering if I had another VDSL connection installed would I be able to load balance the upload of the relay across the two connections? Or would this mess up the routing for my relay? I.e. traffic comes in to the single published relay IP (which is OK as it's ~80MBit download). Then the relay can push ~40MBit upload load balanced across two 20MBit connections. Would it be problematic because the traffic would come from two different IPs, one of which does not match the published IP for the relay? I hope that question makes sense?? Thanks -- +447867537146 skype: rupertroe1 --

3 3

eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet.
by Jeremy Olexa 21 Feb '15

21 Feb '15

Hi List, I'm seeing these messages in one of my relays. Pretty often, too. eventdns: Address mismatch on received DNS packet. Apparent source was <IP>:<port> I've searched this and found references[1] to a faulty resolver of some type and torservers.net ignores the message[2]. I use my ISPs resolvers which are physically close to the server. In an attempt to fix this, I've added a caching local resolver to my server and configured resolv.conf properly (problem persists). Then I switched to Google DNS with caching in front (problem persists). Can anyone clarify what the problem may be? Or is it no problem at all? [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2013-July/002209.html [2]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2011-December/001034.html Thanks! -Jeremy

6 5

(no subject)
by Volker Mink 20 Feb '15

20 Feb '15

3 2

Again Hibernations vs. limits, for the extreme case
by Filippo Valsorda 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

I run a relay with decently high bandwidth, but limited monthly transit (3TB out). https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/2EC042F4274CC8A54381C78E8D1BF322FA26A0… I gathered from previous discussions that a fast node that goes into hibernation is more beneficial to the network than an artificially throttled node. So I set a hibernation limit and no speed limit. However, it looks like my node is fast enough to burn all the transit in a couple of days when it has consensus, and (1 month - 2 days) is enough time to get forgotten. So I'm probably stuck in a cycle of month 1. slowly ramp up speed and consensus; go into hibernation for a few days; lose the Guard flag (-> get more traffic); month 2. burn all the transit in 2 days go into hibernation for >25 days GOTO month 1 Is it still the case that I shouldn't put throttling in, even if this means that each other month I'll run at really low speed to ramp up consensus? Or should I combine the Hibernate setting with a reasonable limit of maybe 1 MB/s? Or maybe use daily limits in this case? (Please CC me, I might not read in-list-only replies) Thanks, Filippo

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] "Very Safe" Exit Policy
by Raynardine 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

On 02/18/2015 09:01 AM, Chris Patti wrote: > Bleah. > > Pesky humans:) Yes, it's always the problem of fitting imperfect components into a perfect system that ruins everyone's day. :P

1 0

"Very Safe" Exit Policy
by Stephen R Guglielmo 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

Hi list, I was looking for suggestions/discussion on very conservative policies for an exit relay. I run a relay now that is "reject *:*" and I wanted to open up a few exit ports. I don't want to open up major ports due to potential abuse issues. My server host states that, although they do allow Tor, there is a chance of the relay being terminated at their will [1]. I was considering using a whitelist exit policy and opening up only the following ports to be "safe": 43 - WHOIS protocol 53 - DNS 389 - LDAP 464,543,544,749 - Kerberos 531 - AOL IM 636 - LDAP over SSL 706 - SLIC 873 - rsync 5190 - ICQ and AOL Instant Messenger 5222,5223,5269,5280,5281,5298 - XMPP 5353 - Multicast DNS 5999 - CVSup 8332,8333 - Bitcoin 9091 -Transmission (BitTorrent client) Web Interface 11371 - OpenPGP key server 64738 - Mumble/Murmur I constructed the list based on a quick skimming of the WP ports list [2]. I suspect allowing IRC would eventually be grounds for my host to terminate my relay. This would be my first time running an exit relay and I'd be happy to hear advice and suggestions! Thanks, Steve [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ISPCorrespondence#OVH [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers

9 11

new ansible-tor features: automatic instance configuration + automatic MyFamily generation (PATCH)
by Nusenu 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi David, thanks for creating ansible-tor. I added two features that are crucial to me and maybe useful for others as well. If you like it, feel free to merge - this is my first ansible experience and it is lightly tested. Example: lets say you have added a new server to your inventory. The server has 3 public IP addresses (1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3). After running ansible-tor with the new changes you will have the following 6 tor instances/ORPorts running (without manually specifying IP addresses first): 1.1.1.1:80 1.1.1.1:443 2.2.2.2:80 2.2.2.2:443 3.3.3.3:80 3.3.3.3:443 including MyFamily configuration across all servers/instances. regards, Nusenu changes ======= - - auto instance deployment without manual IP/ORPort configuration (new) starts 2 tor instances per available IP address by default makes manually specifying IP addresses and ORPorts via proc_instances obsolete ORPorts default to 80 and 443 (DirPort not added yet) replace "single.yml" + "instances.yml" -> instance.yml only (handles both cases dynamically) - - MyFamily autogeneration (new) Keeping all relay fingerprints in sync is probably one of the most annoying tasks for a relay operator managing multiple relays, now ansible takes care of this (all relays need to be in the 'relays' group) - - directory structure (changed) defaults: configs -> /etc/tor/<ip>_<orport>.torrc log dir -> /var/log/tor/<ip>_<orport>.log datadir -> /var/lib/tor/<ip>_<orport>/ pid dir -> /var/run/tor/<ip>_<orport>.pid (previously everything was located in /etc) - - added torrc sanity check (tor --verify-config ) (new) - - torrc files are owned by root (previously owned by $tor_user) - - the pid file check has been removed since the file is not required to exist (it will be created when tor starts) open - ----- - - it does not take care of instance removals yet (in case IPs are no longer available or amount of ORPorts have been reduced) - - allow opt-out -> only 1 tor instance per host (even if there are more IPs available) - - DirPort support - - detect RFC1918 IPs (opt-in) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU4i+CAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0y+kP/i4Mn/XClgXYloGdgWU9UPR+ Y8yZv97FvJOMPI40tccPKcNPcLQFRvGFYkR96sAOGoMfbJT/tQeH2dOxwAEF31mv afFkLsVPAOpNzlyO2qP1mkLtB/aYXtZ6jb2+JtpAhVBLKOVFBN2nNRiwdgFYZFGy f0ZIp7xyR9XcAhXo4nc0hlETREAnbMOgFGM6vqqIpJfimF3liE6va5HNw2CD+7Zd MmeIOuVNvQh09SiYf48AJpBeBRoybOvmFIPphtXEYlC/y6cd/IyUIYdOBuaLa5td vQnrQOC7TUgp74uarl0yaatOYOEagl0lrNeN6+Vgy5e0e12TgVccWW5ZosM1PBXG VH2FTfjHXUO+VN0p4xn6AS0dhWTRKb7isj3jpznTMsiq0AcvXM6DZjkzkcCPChVz jptdUbNvgpdP7j5X11iZniGpxVe7aFo2wCzgZORY1xMysiigJsL4M/nonr4YO4G9 w7kyNcco9gStklJSvOJXbfX4HrOCuWdq8hp4xubyON+5jpEUgMmG1o/v5NJANV4C CLzlz4kf9l9o351Z7DJQzilxzDEwe6oZwSWnsq+yB65Mgj5sUJnchi40iPLOHSUr DaVSSUxoZ8VVNYqqvGYb2fysYa7DsCgofsF/eXP4QyJp1WFNwc0ft6qIhyAGIDwx RfwQHrA+Lg95mdXDyr0B =QHkD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 15

Re: [tor-relays] new ansible-tor features: automatic instance configuration + automatic MyFamily generation (PATCH)
by Raynardine 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

On 02/17/2015 04:01 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote: > My algorithm. Hm. This all sucks because Tor still doesn't scale across > multiple cores. There should be more affordable dedicated host service providers that provide professionally overclocked servers. Liquid nitrogen isn't that expensive to generate, if you use solar power to make the electricity required more affordable. It seems dedicated servers are becoming less and less common as virtual private servers attract cheap customers. For things like Tor that are dumb and can only bind to a single core, overclocking and overvolting that one core professionally could be a practical business venture. Unfortunately, due to the nature of mixnets like Tor, unless a large number of equivalent service providers do it, the benefit provided is minimal at best. The Tor relay pool is strongest when the hosting providers are as diverse as possible. If 51% of Tor relays are hosted by the same company and in the same country, Tor may as well not exist.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Mozilla-Middles losing guard
by Raynardine 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

On 02/17/2015 02:59 PM, lpwzi9i84(a)use.startmail.com wrote: > ...but what we want are nonmalicious guards, right? If you want non-malicious guards, you may consider manually configuring bridge relays. Manually verifying and authenticating the identity of bridge relay operators is probably the only sure way to get non-malicious guard relays.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Mozilla-Middles losing guard
by lpwzi9i84＠use.startmail.com 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

at this very moment all of them got the flag, right. But theyre loosing it at seemingly random order. I kept an eye on Atlas for some time, at 18:00 (UTC+1) Mozilla13 was at 1.51 MB/s without Guardflag. On Tue, February 17, 2015 19:50, Nusenu <nusenu(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > >> i am wondering about losing of guard state of the Mozilla Middle >> Relays. > what makes you think they [1] lost guard flag? > > [1] https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/mozilla > https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU442PAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0FbUP/27q3GoeFaqEEjRrd88w3S5C > PGhX0yPe/0zZzTCWwBR8GR44qm6XyO6rQloGVFJAbcUfPjZEvYSED3CVDfgiuoIb > t9mg4nH5W6ZMMGQJhT+wmKZTFOIK68nZpfmtlsrAfstbQ4NMj4QHOb1mDos+XnE5 > DPYvjmfiarVbghM5KsB6w8s26bqT/By5coxEdGOlHLv5E8iqUpCUYWP45FAcY7uE > MGp7smOheykVF7MsNHG8uhWaEp63jSKS0hgqAXYQJfyAheo5y+zuoA6rL+7J7CqK > 9VRRg33qmCnuT4uRrk51Ggdbl9yS2qtJEnPVzxGJc8433wKHut6PlNz0SnusLuDN > Hal0ndXp0ZjQrAysBvMGJ7pcR/7+pw3kmLSyXfszMZVh4gkkWjDXdfQa3kTORdJ2 > XrIs/E+IqhwEGt1Sj+CcQBLiVJ0Wp3HMFl94rVH0qB2UhracoJ+tCfEvmKW8fZWf > lKpAZYGUgROgI1NHyyaFnhxvCPxma/bLjqjShaDJNR5Dak8DFHqzHnP78Y4w9hZm > 5Kk54Tg+jqjWapnwHQwgIj+mk8KiacqMirjHm5gBGRa34E8TZmoyZgINE+yRH4cj > ogvopd2DJerDwOaYb66ed1r1gsg78eDfBPE27kwAzfsY3ur/G6JDCTv3vSsyoO5r > XABeYlaQuf760OikXwXV > =aJUd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

4 5

Mozilla-Middles losing guard
by lpwzi9i84＠use.startmail.com 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

Hi, i am wondering about losing of guard state of the Mozilla Middle Relays. Is it cause of 1 physical machine handles 6 IP's, 2 Relays each? Maybe the total bandwidth should shared by 4 IP's, 2 Relays each to increase the chance to keep a bandwidth throughput beyond 2 MB/s. Guardstate will be rejected by falling below 2MB/s, right? Just wondering if the Mozilla setup could be more smoothed... cheers (this emailadress will expire automatically after 2 weeks)

2 1

Tor weather - signature not found
by mattia 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Hi all, I have recently converted a bridge to a relay. Its fingerprint is 0D14A4498E7D1854696CC07548653EA4CD3CB2DA. I wanted to subscribe to Tor Weather but when I try I get the "We could not locate a Tor node with that fingerprint." error. Searching the web I found it was a common error years ago, but shouldn't be now. Any ideas about it? Thanks!

5 6

tor weather not sending emails?
by Nusenu 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Hi, I subscribed to tor weather to get notifications in case something is wrong with a relay. Although the relay had several downtimes (>1 day), I never got an email. (I subscribed to with the minimal setting 1 hour) Did anyone get emails from tor weather in the past 2-3 weeks during downtimes? thanks!

5 8

Value of an unused bridge?
by Elliott Jin 14 Feb '15

14 Feb '15

Hi all, I've had an EC2 bridge <https://globe.torproject.org/#/bridge/FD0814BDD15B2E591B04868B988D87FC6D331…> up for 2 weeks, and it seems to have gotten no usage. I'm considering converting it into a middle relay instead, but before I do so, I'm just wondering: - Is there value in having a marginal unused bridge "in reserve"? - Is this value greater than that of an active middle relay? Thanks! -Elliott -- Anonymous Feedback <http://www.admonymous.com/eyjin>

4 4

Thoughts on new relay
by Niklas Femerstrand 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Moin, Our relay is online as of Jan 23 and recently I've been thinking about pivoting it into a bridge instead. The relay lives in Cambodia and may naturally be a bit off from the rest of the network (latency). Consensus weight is steadily increasing despite various initial downtime incidents, which you can see in Atlas graphs. (We've had some network upgrades and during a separate event even had a monkey yanking the eth from the nic.) Currently we advertise 435.66 KB/s and with our current ~9d 10h uptime we have downloaded 3.6 GB resp uploaded 3.7 GB. Theoretically our tubes fit 10 Mbps download and 30 Mbps upload. The question is whether the relay is worth keeping with its current setup or if we can contribute more by re-configuring into a bridge. Unfortunately it is very risky for us to allow exit traffic, but we <3 any cipher packet. Please advice! https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/94F806110B23E727AE8BAD74DD95B0EE0B7A8… Regards, King Kong -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJU2gGzAAoJEHxAR3sGx+rLTzEP/05TJK3vzfPe3kUjUfg0G/wm vlc1vZLshAvK/pE1mf2DqDSgnuxR+QHHJI8htJOaU5VJVMlnEy4nsF0uE76It1EW OLUo7+LU452Sx7XjyVYMKOu6OJ9kD1Cg6OkNT2HEIOR+57x7vNJTYr7oF0uNu6dt UzVFJKkM3Y1ca4GsMS2M/oXFw2jGrrvmx4DLHu2OSDwNumy3ndOETnZscVfErAMK A/K4JI0Ws6pInBRciEHdak9ZBkR/f9jYGPbUXOSwnJN6XIsawijTIbrRLfYiUcro 0wj6mZYqXgKRDOvP57UNkf5UaolADQb6ssiLkhhAGu+DHnTt5V8g2vkqtY3wU02N 823X7o3oNZYq5yZFTbexH8Al+ys9KvKlu5q0YRYvbBwvI/yGHyr/gEI7ufV+9tZ6 z9Mo2hCBsaM0vrikBzejhjSw5qc4HcwMKErlC3cHQHIbszryu1O0WY1G22pwYgss mAGDr6OcdeIdMyNcJlpyH8+jToRSJrkAwDSPdQz+IVMq785x0GnOo2uV2/7NTr2J +LVUjSjAenRhPX+TrAFFujNYXZf5uD/EUfsGyUyCdBhJ5PWsLjYQ/EYD6PToDX8P BdocR3XfxZS7nD5PYRDfyWNeckCL6VPrnZrgMGIYBEXAn7jhX608vzmZV7IU7mzv 3NrnDWpllK4M42hT7fXs =hV51 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Is Bridges supposed to get a gurard flag?.
by Sasikantha babu 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

Hello All, I've been running a non-exit relay at home and a bridge on amazon cloud since dec-2014. And today I had noticed on atlas my bridge has got a guard flag and from the logs in the last 18 hours it had sent 4.73 GB and received 4.89 GB (finally I'm happy to see bandwidth being used on bridge). I've the following questions 1. Is a bridge supposed to get a guard flag ?. 2. Is there a difference between a guard flag of a relay and a guard flag of a bridge?. Thanks

2 1

question and concering about probability of exitnode
by tor＠viisauksena.de 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

hi, just want to note, i am proud to have an german exit node with 11Mbs .. but also concerned about this raising exit node probability, actually it reads for me like 1 of 400 tor-users is going through this exit (by recalculating a exit probability of 0.25 %) - this concerns me because it should not be so easy (running just some days on a vserver) and i don't know how high this will raise ? i mean, its easy for me to guess a nsa/gchq/bnd bad-ass-club can get some hundred vservers running, and get tor exclusively exits .. and guard (which was much more easy, i lost it because i quickly run out of maximum limit for a month, so i cut it, but the 1 day downtime lost me the guard flag) just my opinion .. and if you can show me some more information over the numbers of exits and guards and so on, i would be happy, cant believe there are so less many exit nodes out there ... thx, Jens

2 2