- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

RPM upgrade issue.
by Sascha Siekmann 01 Jan '15

01 Jan '15

Hello, Happy New Year, everone! I've been chasing this down here for the last hour or so and I thought I might as well share it since others might also experience it. I am running https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/plutonium After running yum update this lead to a different fingerprint being generated for the same host. Nov 29 01:09:27 Installed: tor-0.2.5.10-tor.2.rh6_5.i686 Dec 29 19:21:07 Installed: torsocks-2.0.0-2.el6.i686 Dec 29 19:21:10 Updated: tor-0.2.5.10-1.el6.i686 Then, traffic collapsed by going down from <> 8MB/sec to pretty much nothing. I checked the logs and found permission errors. The group for Tor was changed from _tor to toranon, so the permissions were wrong after the rpm was installed. Also, /etc/tor/torrc had this line commented : ## The directory for keeping all the keys/etc. By default, we store ## things in $HOME/.tor on Unix, and in Application Data\tor on Windows. DataDirectory /var/lib/tor So it was defaulting to ~tor directory, tor/tor.log-20141230:Dec 30 03:13:01.000 [warn] Default DataDirectory is "~/.tor". This expands to "/.tor", which is probably not what you want. Using "/var/tor" instead [root@plutonium log]# rpm -qa | grep tor torsocks-2.0.0-2.el6.i686 tor-0.2.5.10-1.el6.i686 [root@plutonium log]# Dec 29 17:56:47.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 25 days 0:00 hours, with 1885 circuits open. I've sent 6843.34 GB and received 6761.80 GB. Dec 29 17:56:47.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 97.313% Dec 29 17:56:47.000 [notice] TLS write overhead: 2% Dec 29 17:56:47.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 16007/16007 TAP, 49264/49264 NTor. Dec 29 20:07:10.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdesc-consensus.tmp" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdesc-consensus) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:07:10.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:07:10.000 [warn] Couldn't append to journal in /var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new: Permission denied Dec 29 20:07:11.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:07:11.000 [warn] Couldn't append to journal in /var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new: Permission denied Dec 29 20:08:10.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:08:10.000 [warn] Couldn't append to journal in /var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new: Permission denied Dec 29 20:08:10.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:08:10.000 [warn] Couldn't append to journal in /var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new: Permission denied Dec 29 20:09:11.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:09:11.000 [warn] Couldn't append to journal in /var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new: Permission denied Dec 29 20:09:11.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:09:11.000 [warn] Couldn't append to journal in /var/lib/tor/cached-microdescs.new: Permission denied Dec 29 20:29:31.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-consensus.tmp" (/var/lib/tor/cached-consensus) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:29:32.000 [warn] Couldn't open "/var/lib/tor/cached-descriptors.new" (/var/lib/tor/cached-descriptors.new) for writing: Permission denied Dec 29 20:29:32.000 [warn] Unable to store router descriptor I fixed the permissions, but I am seeing this message now that I have not seen before. Jan 1 21:36:02 p15186978 Tor[28986]: Invalid result from curve25519 handshake: 4 Jan 1 21:36:02 p15186978 Tor[28986]: onion_skin_client_handshake failed. Jan 1 21:36:02 p15186978 Tor[28986]: circuit_finish_handshake failed. Jan 1 21:36:02 p15186978 Tor[28986]: connection_edge_process_relay_cell (at origin) failed. Jan 1 21:36:04 p15186978 Tor[28986]: Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Should I be concerned about this message? [root@plutonium etc]# uname -a Linux plutonium 2.6.32-431.el6.i686 #1 SMP Fri Nov 22 00:26:36 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [root@plutonium etc]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.6 (Final) [root@plutonium etc]# Thanks, Sascha.

2 1

Relay is down
by Giovanny Andres Gongora Granada 01 Jan '15

01 Jan '15

Hi, My relay was up during 4 days, but now it's down. In the log it says: Dec 30 21:19:51.000 [warn] http status 400 ("Authdir is rejecting routers in this range.") response from dirserver '128.31.0.39:9131'. Please$ Dec 30 21:19:51.000 [warn] http status 400 ("Authdir is rejecting routers in this range.") response from dirserver '208.83.223.34:443'. Pleas$ Dec 30 21:19:51.000 [warn] http status 400 ("Authdir is rejecting routers in this range.") response from dirserver '131.188.40.189:80'. Pleas$ Dec 30 21:19:51.000 [warn] http status 400 ("Authdir is rejecting routers in this range.") response from dirserver '86.59.21.38:80'. Please c$ What could be happening? I restart it but it says the same on the log. Regards, Gio -- Mozilla Hispano: http://mozilla-hispano.org Mentor en mozilla-hispano.org: Gioyik <https://www.mozilla-hispano.org/documentacion/Usuario:Gioyik> Mozilla Colombia: Miembro en MozillaColombia <http://mozillacolombia.org/our-contributors/> twitter: Gioyik <https://twitter.com/Gioyik> Blog: gioyik.wordpress.com irc: gioyik

8 11

OT: folding@home
by Sebastian Urbach 28 Dec '14

28 Dec '14

Dear list members, I would like to invite any operator, who has some idle Cores (CPU or GPU) left,to join the folding@home distributed computing project: http://folding.stanford.edu/ There is now a brandnew team called Tor Project (Unofficial) with the id 227615. Hope to see some of you there :-) -- Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations Sebastian Urbach ----------------------------------------- Definition of Tor: 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain and 100% reason to remember the name! -----------------------------------------

6 10

boost CPU on a Tor relay
by s7r 28 Dec '14

28 Dec '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, A Tor relay currently going 33MB/s could go a lot faster but CPU is at 93% usage - this is the bottleneck. Here is the output of /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 26 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz stepping : 5 microcode : 0x11 cpu MHz : 3068.000 cache size : 8192 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 8 core id : 0 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 11 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm ida dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid bogomips : 6132.24 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: it also goes down to processor 1 - processor 7 Any ideas how this could be boosted? OS is Debian wheezy. No aes-ni hardware acceleration, no openssl benchmarking or customization currently. advices? Thank you. - -- s7r PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUDuRTAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRLqYH/iSCtC9r/7/DBCG2qqUGPEgY TELvt+UMGyMP6ncNJH+vDEdHO4BBlSMzFQdj2sKyO3hOT5492cIOaT3gGokaDApL W913yqUkIfiUT6FUWJ6g4/LUt25pMG25Ednr/ZJJXR/pR+Ym3T3ytg+MSwRBmpEe +h26Q7qvd/p4f6VhTR0sEsxQfDLVXrEsj3kn0BL0rLklN5zH/bqmIsK2hio5Nl3H KBvbvyt+JbLhA/4+jygT6AygHDH9arpXWEh3ZcJVn7mE0OmPAvukdlLUj70K5F7r cCeMakcGBbSzit5tY7jUmSvkUewVBhAxAZmv1hgNnuCoSrGPtQZseCbM06cry+k= =TyKF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 10

Re: [tor-relays] OT: folding@home
by teor 27 Dec '14

27 Dec '14

Some thoughts on the security of crowdsourced computing: Installing additional software increases the attack surface of your relay, even more so when the new software access the network. (Not to mention any additional libraries.) There is also the issue of the security of automatic updates to the any executables - Folding@home may have less of an issue with this than BOINC, as there is only one project involved. If you're willing to accept the additional risk, it seems like a worthy cause. (There's also a minor additional power cost, which really only impacts your provider and the environment…) > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 12:54:24 +0100 > From: mikael <mikael(a)gutanet.sk> > > Hi, > some years ago I contributed to https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/ > via BOINC (https://boinc.berkeley.edu/) but stoped. > Forgive my paranoia, but I couldn't find proof that it really helps what > they write, that the provided cpu power could doesn't land at NSA for > example :/ > > Any different experience? > >> On 12/26/14 6:55 PM, Sebastian Urbach wrote: >> Dear list members, >> >> I would like to invite any operator, who has some idle Cores (CPU or >> GPU) left,to join the folding@home distributed computing project: >> >> http://folding.stanford.edu/ >> >> There is now a brandnew team called Tor Project (Unofficial) with the >> id 227615. Hope to see some of you there :-) >

3 2

News reporting exit node attacks
by Austin Bentley 27 Dec '14

27 Dec '14

Anyone have any more information on any of this stuff? They claim it's a 0day but I have yet to see proof.

3 4

Possible DDoS
by Christian Burkert 26 Dec '14

26 Dec '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi *, I'm running a non-exit Tor node for a few months now on a virtual server hosted in a professional datacenter. That's the node: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/4C246EA9C950B872FD77F761CEAAB41D93D976… Yesterday, December 25th, the support wrote me, that my server is under a DDoS attack with 2GBit/s lasting over more than two hours. So, the hoster black holed my traffic to protect the other customers. The hoster wanted to know which services I'm running and told me that if I continue running Tor and further attacks will happen, then I would have to bear the costs. Eventually, I took down the Tor node to avoid further confrontation. Now I seek for your interpretation of this event: - - Has there been more recent incidents against Tor nodes? - - How can I investigate it? - - How should one react to a hoster? I mean they could have made up the whole thing... Looking forward to your comments Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUnUdDAAoJEHAzZ6ooPDSy0nMP/1lyHPPFBxpAOvEiWL+ijrvA SPViJvZH/cPUS/11M7qm+bsZa/fbiRk6kY8ADcY8abe1Z8lHzMYPGwZvKaIijiZG M8hjCHtMWLipO6iLmVfFskDtRn37Ga2ibEhGkVesDV53kPcotgg4i7tIqIuNb11X Gnkk+WpYwkrS9nPZjYNLmce093s4lux/N5GyRY/gQii+h9mfDJ++W+1ueNU94UQ0 bvK1wF7MdicWlu0kR49hCgFtDFh7uUjP87MPZmmQYHI82qWhTJxqOuuImrnJew2k pCFSzn03x/hXg1QFNPNLsqHU9OhUob3/z17Azcpbir15mY4/YE7Gq14/LBM+FKh0 LqGjzaVbQo0hs0kE2yFk5sEP0Dsv5aiOUItqFIMTG52FYZ6cUh/eTxMd6vblHwfU ujil0rFCRqtmbF6wIDBuXDxc0fmdaRMWTDfSlPxYGkfUaq1tSea1OAvjFpheOcNM wu9QiTSq9BTLY010iHSYQDknSr+gFkc/ooNLsPV1AAZFyMlG0epLww6tqR7C9hZq RyEX9piqGal7mU56gETxhDrD0Z/aKgXMbS+KvYfZhopGWEVg5vbWPGxAId53nhr6 hjvLyFmy68hBdbOB/pvp8qvw8veQR3niiHIxhxAl+BIQzXX45x0uVCPHFUpbbLp5 POIwpEJ46oaz7+cddAHf =TcPt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Re: [tor-relays] Possible DDoS
by Sebastian Urbach 26 Dec '14

26 Dec '14

On December 26, 2014 12:41:51 PM Christian Burkert <post(a)cburkert.de> wrote: Hi, > I'm running a non-exit Tor node for a few months now on a virtual server > hosted in a professional datacenter. Thank you ! > Yesterday, December 25th, the support wrote me, that my server is > under a DDoS attack with 2GBit/s lasting over more than two hours. So, > the hoster black holed my traffic to protect the other customers. I've seen this behaviour from some ISP's before and it's rather sad. If something like this happens my ISP is taking care of it without disabling my systems. I'm just getting a note with all the technical information and that's it. > The hoster wanted to know which services I'm running and told me that > if I continue running Tor and further attacks will happen, then I > would have to bear the costs. > Eventually, I took down the Tor node to avoid further confrontation. That's interesting, they gave you some infos like the time and the amount but nothing else ? Seems to me that they're pretty clueless and are fishing in the dark. Another reason for their behaviour could be that they want to get rid of you / your Tor node. Threatening customers is really sad, sounds like they heard the word Tor from you and then concluded "oh, than he basically asked for the attack". > > Now I seek for your interpretation of this event: > - - Has there been more recent incidents against Tor nodes? Nothing with that magnitude on my end for weeks. > - - How can I investigate it? You can ask your ISP for their logs regarding that attack. Do you have any logs on your system, maybe from a intrusion detection or anything else ? > - - How should one react to a hoster? I mean they could have made up the > whole thing... If you are already considering this than i would recommend changing to another ISP, sounds like there is already some distrust. > > Looking forward to your comments > Chris > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUnUdDAAoJEHAzZ6ooPDSy0nMP/1lyHPPFBxpAOvEiWL+ijrvA > SPViJvZH/cPUS/11M7qm+bsZa/fbiRk6kY8ADcY8abe1Z8lHzMYPGwZvKaIijiZG > M8hjCHtMWLipO6iLmVfFskDtRn37Ga2ibEhGkVesDV53kPcotgg4i7tIqIuNb11X > Gnkk+WpYwkrS9nPZjYNLmce093s4lux/N5GyRY/gQii+h9mfDJ++W+1ueNU94UQ0 > bvK1wF7MdicWlu0kR49hCgFtDFh7uUjP87MPZmmQYHI82qWhTJxqOuuImrnJew2k > pCFSzn03x/hXg1QFNPNLsqHU9OhUob3/z17Azcpbir15mY4/YE7Gq14/LBM+FKh0 > LqGjzaVbQo0hs0kE2yFk5sEP0Dsv5aiOUItqFIMTG52FYZ6cUh/eTxMd6vblHwfU > ujil0rFCRqtmbF6wIDBuXDxc0fmdaRMWTDfSlPxYGkfUaq1tSea1OAvjFpheOcNM > wu9QiTSq9BTLY010iHSYQDknSr+gFkc/ooNLsPV1AAZFyMlG0epLww6tqR7C9hZq > RyEX9piqGal7mU56gETxhDrD0Z/aKgXMbS+KvYfZhopGWEVg5vbWPGxAId53nhr6 > hjvLyFmy68hBdbOB/pvp8qvw8veQR3niiHIxhxAl+BIQzXX45x0uVCPHFUpbbLp5 > POIwpEJ46oaz7+cddAHf > =TcPt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays -- Sincerely yours / Sincères salutations Sebastian Urbach ----------------------------------------- Definition of Tor: 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain and 100% reason to remember the name! -----------------------------------------

2 1

Tor Weather doesn't register my fingerprint
by Giovanny Andres Gongora Granada 26 Dec '14

26 Dec '14

Hi, Today I decided to run a Tor Relay and contribute to Tor Project on a Rackspace that I have free for it. I want to use Tor Weather to get notifications about my relay, but when I try to register my fingerprint it doesn't accept it. What could be needed to register it? My fingerprint is: 4C90453B94DAC00BE356283F427CECE024B9D224 This is the info about my relay: https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/4C90453B94DAC00BE356283F427CECE024B9D2… Regards, Gio -- Mozilla Hispano: http://mozilla-hispano.org Mentor en mozilla-hispano.org: Gioyik <https://www.mozilla-hispano.org/documentacion/Usuario:Gioyik> Mozilla Colombia: Miembro en MozillaColombia <http://mozillacolombia.org/our-contributors/> twitter: Gioyik <https://twitter.com/Gioyik> Blog: gioyik.wordpress.com irc: gioyik

2 1

iptables
by mikael 24 Dec '14

24 Dec '14

Hi, I don't know what to do. Please help. I'm getting the following warnings in arm: 16:13:15 [WARN] Your server (MY_PUBLIC_IP:9030) has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. 16:13:15 [WARN] Your server (MY_PUBLIC_IP:443) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. My iptables rules are: mike@host:~$ sudo iptables -nL Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 127.0.0.0/8 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED REJECT all -- 62.210.140.93 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 62.210.151.213 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 103.41.124.106 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 103.41.124.112 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 109.230.220.135 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 115.84.179.148 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 117.21.225.176 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 188.116.19.109 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 219.232.239.40 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- 221.235.188.214 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:22 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp spt:53 ACCEPT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp spt:53 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:9001 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:9030 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpts:6881:6999 ACCEPT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpts:6881:6999 ACCEPT icmp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp type 8 LOG all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 limit: avg 5/min burst 5 LOG flags 0 level 7 prefix `iptables denied: ' REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0

2 2

Whitelist
by Thomas White 24 Dec '14

24 Dec '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Directory Authorities, Can you please remove the following fingerprints/IP's from the blacklist as per my previous updates in tor-talk. D78AB0013D95AFA60757333645BAA03A169DF722 6F545A39D4849C9FE5B08A6D68C8B3478E4B608B 5E87B10B430BA4D9ADF1E1F01E69D3A137FB63C9 0824CE7D452B892D12E081D36E7415F85EA9988F 35961469646A623F9EE03B7B45296527A624AAFD 1EA968C956FBC00617655A35DA872D319E87C597 E5A21C42B0FDB88E1A744D9A0388EFB2A7A598CF 5D1CB4B3025F4D2810CF12AB7A8DDDD6FC10F139 1324EC51FBFA5FD1A11B94563E8D2A7999CD8F57 93CD9231C260558D77331162A5DC5A4C692F5344 IPs: 77.95.229.0/24 5.104.224.15 77.95.224.187 89.207.128.241 128.204.207.215 Authorities who haven't signed yet: gabelmoo tor26 maatuska moria1 urras Regards, T - -- Activist, anarchist and a bit of a dreamer. PGP Keys: key.thecthulhu.com Current Fingerprint: E771 BE69 4696 F742 DB94 AA8C 5C2A 8C5A 0CCA 4983 Key-ID: 0CCA4983 Master Fingerprint: DDEF AB9B 1962 5D09 4264 2558 1F23 39B7 EF10 09F0 Key-ID: EF1009F0 Twitter: @CthulhuSec XMPP: thecthulhu at jabber.ccc.de XMPP-OTR: 4321B19F A9A3462C FE64BAC7 294C8A7E A53CC966 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUmfi/AAoJEFwqjFoMykmDLpwP/iRLkxYXMGzW4ohr/sG2nvYX Fitv6242N0NuGEFkwZgjaYEdiab4Afdg5xacu5r3+tzdccKawZX9w7NOpx1w8iXS IxO4i/nU5DhA2hyn/67/J/JBOqjVY7V0nXVtEOAK3NUGjiRK+uaSojfZ/y3iXgvv MHdr5eGM5Rj7/sZ2eqLsCdzSr0atGQXxyz2JhlVim5rZfG9ikzvGcv8PbDl67Fgp e5l/aq3NAHv8EiMAML1Wpah+hi7fDuyX4QcSLfrrwK2sv+oetbPSa6Kue26PP2Fr UKQLB412hJ4gtLFL5LiQXWvs1cuQO4Yw7tBOJ3qsh4kWpDtVUD7OTIDZRCK+FkwF FuH2XHwN8IVhIcQcTZ+I7dKqWi9vMxaJPWi15osah5rW48ozqCCSqFO9xICOyMDH V1JSeHTVzWCKpkpocUYzIMJvjuqADtAyuR9CX0hgEgUdGf9kMYdo+zGsiXomHO02 1iuWsq1HjwNxL2nAZJpCNsNetcHSvRtwGXbWx2Fr6P/T3tBh7gYfTSD2KwNnw+yE X0IDz5J02Xqz1nU2kiKr+IkZDXI+0aKzkD0KI6Uia0LEcZmjKNEePccHd+PcwIY/ YnH55rVyilUsLBvgQKZwGBVk+9kNmXjwiH1JJbUrGcfsCvZb+E05n5WMcbNYRwW2 N+2CQDnmN8aHLErrs5RU =zOpP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

help needed to setup a bridge on amazon and relay on PC
by Sasikantha babu 24 Dec '14

24 Dec '14

I've been trying to setup a bridge on amazon cloud and relay node on PC but never succeeded in setting it up. I always get an error "Your server (IP:9001) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable". 1. My PC is behind netgear router and I had configured portforwarding (portforwarding seems to work but tor-relay fails complains about ORPort reachability). 2. Follow the steps https://cloud.torproject.org/#get_started and created an instance on amazon cloud but facing the ORPort reachability. Dec 23 14:19:37.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 5%: Connecting to directory server Dec 23 14:19:40.000 [notice] We now have enough directory information to build circuits. Dec 23 14:19:40.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 80%: Connecting to the Tor network Dec 23 14:19:40.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 85%: Finishing handshake with first hop Dec 23 14:19:41.000 [notice] Guessed our IP address as ip (source: ip). Dec 23 14:19:41.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 90%: Establishing a Tor circuit Dec 23 14:19:42.000 [notice] Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like client functionality is working. Dec 23 14:19:42.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done Dec 23 14:19:42.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort IP:9001 is reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) Dec 23 14:39:41.000 [warn] Your server (IP:9001) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. Thanks

2 3

Tor Relay Operators Meetup at 31c3 *moved* - 28.12. 13:00
by Moritz Bartl 23 Dec '14

23 Dec '14

Hi, I had to move the meetup slightly in time and to a different room. I was told by CCC orga that they need the original room for Engel meetings. NEW DATE: 28.12.2014 13:00 LOCATION: HALL C https://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/wiki/Session:Tor_Relay_Operators_Meetup See you! -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/

1 0

Tor Relay Operators Meetup at 31c3 - 28.12. 14:15
by Moritz Bartl 23 Dec '14

23 Dec '14

Hi, Torservers.net invites Tor exit relay operators and organizations to a meetup. If possible/relevant, for example if you're a member of one of the 'Torservers partner organizations', please prepare some slides on your activities. You're obviously also welcome to suggest sessions as a member of the broader relay community! We will do quick presentations on recent and future activities around Torservers.net, talk about events relevant to the Tor relay community, and what lies ahead. https://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/wiki/Session:Tor_Relay_Operators_Meetup 2014/12/28 14:15 - 16:15 See you there! -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/

5 8

DDoS attack targeted on my exit node
by Michael Renner 22 Dec '14

22 Dec '14

Hi, my tor exit node was targeted with two DDoS attacks, one on 2014-12-20 01:00 CET and one on 2014-12-22 18:00 CET [1], both lasting about 5 minutes each. This alone wouldn’t be too noteworthy if it weren’t for the fact that a) there’s a certain state of alarm WRT the Tor networks integrity and b) these are the only attacks my ISP has on record for the over 2.5 years of operating the Tor Exit node. If no other operators have noticed anything out of the ordinary (given by the silence on the list) this is most likely a fluke (getting rid of pesky IRC users?), but better be safe than sorry. best, Michael [1] http://i.imgur.com/Zu9UkW3.png <http://i.imgur.com/Zu9UkW3.png> Summary screen

3 2

ntp needs attention
by Felix 22 Dec '14

22 Dec '14

Hi See: https bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773576 Debian will be fixed by 'apt-get update' and 'apt-get upgrade'. dpkg.log tells if the fix is in place: https security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-9293 ... Cheers!

3 2

Hibernation and Guard flag
by Filippo Valsorda 21 Dec '14

21 Dec '14

Hello, I set up a relay node on my VPS to eat up all that unused bandwidth, and it's doing well so far [1]. Since I have ~3TB per month and I heard hibernation is preferable to throttling, I set up monthly accounting with that cap. However I have two doubts: 1. Is daily accounting preferable? That is, what's best, shorter or longer hibernation periods? 2. How does hibernation play with the Guard flag? I know Guards rotation plays a crucial role in users privacy, and it seems to me hibernation would really hurt a client that selected you as its Guard, since it will have either to run with one less available Guard, or pick a new one and increase its risk. Also, I know there are talks about making only 1 Guard selected, how would that play with hibernation? N.B. please cc me into the replies, I might not be getting only-in-list replies. Thanks, Filippo [1] https://globe.torproject.org/#/relay/2EC042F4274CC8A54381C78E8D1BF322FA26A0…

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Platform diversity in Tor network [was: OpenBSD doc/TUNING]
by teor 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

> From: Richard Johnson <rdump(a)river.com> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Platform diversity in Tor network [was: > OpenBSD doc/TUNING] > > On 2014-11-05 10:47, Libertas wrote: >> I appreciate your interest! Also, I hope I'm not speaking with too >> much authority. If anyone here has more OpenBSD experience than me, >> please send addendums or corrections. > > Maybe call this an addendum? Some version of the following work in progress > is going onto our local documentation store for others maintaining our > OpenBSD relays. > > It's a bit long-winded for inclusion in doc/TUNING per > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13702 , as it's intended to > educate *BSD and Linux sysadmins about a smidgen of the why behind the > tuning recommendations, as well as point at further exploration. > > > Richard > > ------- > Our OpenBSD tuning for Tor involves: ... > 4) Probably running more than one relay on a host to use available CPU > cores and bandwidth. ... > 4) Loading more CPU cores > > If you have one of your CPUs maxed out running a Tor relay, with the other > CPU(s) mostly idle (see top(1)), yet you have bandwidth to spare still, you > can run additional Tor instances to sop some of it up. > > The sanest way to handle this is to make each relay a stand-alone entity > with a naming scheme to keep them straight. Here, we'll use "tor#" for every > relay past the first. > > Make per-relay directories in /var owned by _tor:_tor mode 700 > drwx------ 5 _tor _tor 512 Jan 13 18:52 /var/tor/ > drwx------ 5 _tor _tor 512 Jan 13 22:39 /var/tor2/ > drwx------ 5 _tor _tor 512 Jan 13 22:39 /var/tor3/ > ... > Copy the tor startup script /etc/rc.d/tor to match the naming scheme. > /etc/rc.d/tor2 > /etc/rc.d/tor3 > ... > Copy the torrc from /etc/tor/torrc. > /etc/tor/torrc2 > /etc/tor/torrc3 > ... > Modify /etc/tor/torrc2, /etc/tor/torrc3, ... so they refer to their > appropriate private DataDirectory and PidFile, listen on the appropriate > ports and IP addresses, and have the appropriate exit policies. (Remember > that the public Tor network will by design ignore more than two relays per > IP address.) > DataDirectory /var/tor2 > PidFile /var/tor2/pid > ControlPort 9222 > Address 10.2.2.2 > ORPort 8222 > DirPort 7222 > ... > DataDirectory /var/tor3 > PidFile /var/tor3/pid > ControlPort 9333 > Address 10.3.3.3 > ORPort 8333 > DirPort 7222 > ... > Set each relay to launch at system startup via the named /etc/rc.d scripts in > /etc/rc.conf.local's pkg_scripts. > tor_flags="${tor_flags} -f /etc/tor/torrc" > tor2_flags="${tor2_flags} -f /etc/tor/torrc2" > tor3_flags="${tor3_flags} -f /etc/tor/torrc3" > ... > pkg_scripts=" ... tor tor2 tor3 ..." > Set openfiles-max for each named pkg_script from /etc/rc.conf.log in > /etc/login.conf. > tor:\ > :openfiles-max=8192:\ > :tc=daemon: > tor2:\ > :openfiles-max=8192:\ > :tc=daemon: > tor3:\ > :openfiles-max=8192:\ > :tc=daemon: > ... > Remember to allow inbound traffic to the additional ports set in > /etc/tor/torrc[#] in your /etc/pf.conf. Why give advice on "tor3" when the current consensus parameter for limit per IP is 2? In case someone has an extra IP? Or are you hoping we will increase the consensus parameter to 3? I could revive that suggestion, by the way - it stalled as trac #13414 due to concerns with making sybils easier. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13414 Maybe we could try for 3 per IP? teor pgp 0xABFED1AC hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 http://0bin.net/paste/Mu92kPyphK0bqmbA#Zvt3gzMrSCAwDN6GKsUk7Q8G-eG+Y+BLpe7w…

2 1

Platform diversity in Tor network [was: OpenBSD doc/TUNING]
by grarpamp 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Libertas <libertas(a)mykolab.com> wrote: > I think it would be a good idea to add OpenBSD to doc/TUNING because [...] > promoting OpenBSD relays benefits the Tor network's security. Absolutely. Not just due to OpenBSD's security positioning, but moreso from network diversity. Windows is its own world. But if you're a Unix admin there's no reason Linux should be deployed 20x more often than [Free/Open]BSD. It's ridiculously counter to meeting diversity goals, especially with bandwith weighting if one platform is getting grossly disproportionate traffic than another. Just pick one of the two BSD's and run it instead. FreeBSD in particular is well suited to the OS and network needs of Tor. And knowing how to admin more Unixes will serve any admin well. 5950 Linux 1593 Windows 173 FreeBSD 55 Darwin 44 OpenBSD 7 NetBSD 6 SunOS 4 Bitrig 2 GNU/kFreeBSD 1 DragonFly

12 29

Out of memory message
by Logforme 15 Dec '14

15 Dec '14

I run the relay Logforme (855BC2DABE24C861CD887DB9B2E950424B49FC3). Yesterday I saw new messages in the log file: Dec 06 09:28:13.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 06 09:28:16.000 [notice] Removed 1040388096 bytes by killing 1 circuits; 14631 circuits remain alive. Do I read that correctly as one circuit using 1GB of memory? Here's the first lines from the top command: top - 09:40:41 up 31 days, 1:51, 1 user, load average: 0.53, 0.62, 0.66 Tasks: 95 total, 3 running, 92 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie %Cpu(s): 10.2 us, 2.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 83.2 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 4.5 si, 0.0 st KiB Mem: 3950828 total, 3833092 used, 117736 free, 49696 buffers KiB Swap: 3212284 total, 1296392 used, 1915892 free, 99168 cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2680 debian-t 20 0 4134m 2.8g 24m R 63.5 73.4 27199:00 tor The relay is running on a dedicated debian box with 4GB of ram. It usually only uses about 0.5GB but now it is maxed out. The relay and the box is so far working fine, I just wonder if this is some kind of attack or if anything is wrong and if there is anything I should do about it.

5 8

Changing ulimit for debian-tor
by Lluís 12 Dec '14

12 Dec '14

The limit to open files is set to 1024 by default in my system. So it is for the "debian-tor" user, too. It seems to me a bit low. I tried to rise it a whit through "sudo" and getting a shell for debian-tor, but it doesn't work. Can I use PAM-LIMIT with tor ? If not, how can I set ulimit for debian-tor when booting ? And when restarting tor ? BTW, may the open files ulimit preclude a relay to get the "guard" flag ? thanks in advance, Lluís Spain

5 6

specifying your own entrance and exit nodes
by Seth 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Assuming there are certain Tor notes being run by parties hostile to my own interests, what are the pros and cons of specifying one's own list of trusted entrance and exit nodes? I run a Tor relay at home 24/7 and use that as my entrance point. I do this to provide cover traffic for my own Tor use as well as help out the network. I also try to use Tor for all my daily web browsing when possible. This has given be a lot of headaches. Besides the demoralizing barrage of Cloudfare captchas, I've had a lot of problems with dropped connections, timeouts, SSL cert warnings, fatal errors connecting to HTTPS sites. I started to get a gut feeling, warranted or not, that some exits nodes might be meddling with my traffic. To combat this I changed the configuration on my local Tor relay to use only exit nodes run by organizations or people that I felt I could trust. I didn't bother with specifying entrance nodes because I could not see what the gain would be. This seems to have curbed some of the problems, with the tradeoff that responsiveness is much more inconsistent. I'm just curious if restricting exit nodes to a few dozen that you trust effectively defeats most of the purpose of using Tor. What would be the bare minimum of Tor exit nodes a person would need to use in order to make life difficult for the Panopticon surveillor scum? If this post is more appropriate for Tor-talk, please let me know

3 3

Re: [tor-relays] No obfs3 traffic at all on bridge
by TheGreatWent 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

From: Marco Gruß<tor-relays(a)email.todmue.de> > Hello, > > my obfs3 bridge has now been up for > 20 days. > > I have iptables rules in place to count packets. To date, > I have not seen a single packet to either the obfs3 or > the scramblesuit port. Both are working though, I just > tried them with the Tor Browser. > > Is this a good sign (i.e. the bridge is still in reserve) > or a bad sign (something's wrong)? > I set one up around the same time and haven't seen any traffic either. Maybe there is a surplus of them? I couldn't figure out what the different bridge pools were or how they got allocated to them.

1 0

exit policy to reflect country-wide ban
by Vladimir Ivanov 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

hi. Recently, github was blocked in Russia (see discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8692584) The ban is executed by all major ISPs (comply with this regulation is necessary to keep the telecom license so no ISP is risking to disobey), this means that if your exit node happens to be in Russia, you're out of luck when you try to connect to github. Some suggest marking exit nodes in Russia as bad exits because connecting via them leads to various problems (like node provider doing MitM on all github https connections). Here is an example: https://twitter.com/wiretapped/status/539934125293961216 I think, if Russian exits operators implement reduced policy rejecting github, that would be better solution: they're still usefull for all other sites and a client would access github using a tor exit elsewhere. Do I miss something here? Are any disatvantages of this? More general, if a network, a particular exit node is connected to, blocks some IP addresses, is it wise to reflect those changes in the node's ExitPolicy? BR, Vladimir

4 5

No obfs3 traffic at all on bridge
by Marco Gruß 07 Dec '14

07 Dec '14

Hello, my obfs3 bridge has now been up for > 20 days. I have iptables rules in place to count packets. To date, I have not seen a single packet to either the obfs3 or the scramblesuit port. Both are working though, I just tried them with the Tor Browser. Is this a good sign (i.e. the bridge is still in reserve) or a bad sign (something's wrong)? Thanks for any help! Marco

1 0