- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

DoS attacks -- status update
by Georg Koppen 29 Oct '22

29 Oct '22

Hello everyone! It's been a while since we last provided some update on this mailing list about our ongoing work fighting several DoS attacks. We can use the attached graph about detected overload over the last couple of months to show what is going on and what we do/plan to do about it. The first noteworthy incident on that graph is the sharp rise in overloaded non-exit nodes since the middle of July caused by a drop of onionskins[1] which the relay's available CPU/memory can't handle anymore. There are currently two ideas we are working on to cope with such a flood of onionskins: 1. Developing a Proof of Work (PoW) system to has a rate-limitation knob rejecting the load of onionskins while letting legitimate ones through.[2] We still need to solve some design issues (feel free to help!) but hope to have that feature integrated into Tor soon. 2. Relay operators started to experiment with iptables/nftables rules and having the right ones available might be a good stopgap approach against the onionskin related DoS. We are coordinating that effort[3], so we have something available to propose to the wider community, which is kept up-to-date and limits the risks of traffic overblocking. Feel free to help as well with that effort. The other noteworthy incident started around September 13 when exit nodes began to get overloaded (while the other DoS was and is still ongoing). Unfortunately, that exit related DoS is heavily impacting our users' experience as can be seen in our OnionPerf data[4]. While we are still investigating the nature of that DoS attack it turns out that blocking particular IP addresses with ExitPolicy rules seems to help on exit nodes this is tested on. The Artikel10 exit node operators provided even a script recently[5] to help with that (much appreciated, thanks!). This approach is highly experimental at this point and it might help us at least to come up with an actual design idea to counter that particular exit DoS. Thanks, Georg [1] For information about overload in general and what "drop of onionskins" means, see: https://support.torproject.org/relay-operators/#relay-bridge-overloaded. It contains as well a guide on how to enable MetricsPort monitoring yourself so you see the actual metrics of your own relay. [2] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40634 [3] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/community/support/-/issues/40093 [4] https://metrics.torproject.org/torperf.html [5] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2022-October/020848.html

1 0

MetricsPort: tor_relay_connections_total type confusion
by nat＠danwin1210.de 29 Oct '22

29 Oct '22

Hello David, again, thanks for your work on adding more metrics to tor's MetricsPort! Many relay operators will love this and documentation will be useful [1]. I reported https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40699 which got closed yesterday, but there was likely a misunderstanding and the changes did not solve the underlying issue. The core issue is: The metric called tor_relay_connections(_total) [2][3] contains a mix of different types (gauge, counter). When mixing types in a single metric, the TYPE definition will always be wrong for one or the other value. For example grafana will show this if you use a counter metric without rate(): "Selected metric is a counter. Consider calculating rate of counter by adding rate()." It is a best practice to avoid mixing different types in a single metric. >From the prometheus best practices [4]: "As a rule of thumb, either the sum() or the avg() over all dimensions of a given metric should be meaningful (though not necessarily useful). If it is not meaningful, split the data up into multiple metrics. For example, having the capacity of various queues in one metric is good, while mixing the capacity of a queue with the current number of elements in the queue is not." An idea to address the underlying issue: One connection metric for counter and one for gauge: - tor_relay_connections_total for counters, like the current label state="created" - tor_relay_connections for gauge metrics, like the current label state="opened". "rejected" also appears to be a gauge metric. Another nice feature of these metrics would be to have a label for what type of system is connecting (src="relay", src="non-relay") - more on that in yesterday's email. A tool by toralf [4] also shows these and uses the source IP but tor itself does not need to look at the source IP to determine the type, something discussed in last week's relay operator meetup. best regards, nat [1] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/web/support/-/issues/312 [2] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/commit/06a26f18727d3831339c138… [3] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/commit/6d40e980fb149549bbef5d9… [4] https://prometheus.io/docs/practices/naming/

2 2

Upcoming OpenSSL 3 security bugfix release
by Georg Koppen 29 Oct '22

29 Oct '22

Hello relay operators! If you are running OpenSSL 3 please be aware that you might need to upgrade it to 3.0.7 as fast as possible on next Tuesday (Nov 1). In an announcement[1] it got said 3.0.7 fixes a CRITICAL security issue. Operators running on the 1.1 series are fine as far as we know so far. Georg [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/10/25/4

1 0

(Invitation) Join us! Tor Relay Operator Meetup - October 22, 2022 - 1900 UTC
by gus 25 Oct '22

25 Oct '22

Dear relay operators, The next Tor relay operator meetup will happen on Saturday, October 22 at 19.00 UTC. ## Where BigBlueButton: https://tor.meet.coop/gus-og0-x74-dzn ## Agenda (WIP) * Announcements * Tor and Snowflake in Iran * EOL rejection * State of DoS attack * New network health project * Q&A * Next Tor Relay Operator Meetup Meeting pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-relay-op-meetup-o22-keep Everyone is free to bring up additional questions or topics at the meeting itself. ## Registration No need for a registration or anything else, just use the room-link above. We will open the room 10 minutes before so you can test your mic setup. Please share with your friends, social media and other mailing lists! cheers, Gus -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead

4 5

Performance issues/DoS from outgoing Exit connections
by Alexander Dietrich 23 Oct '22

23 Oct '22

Hello, on the evening of 2022-10-18, we (Artikel10) started getting alerts about our Tor servers, while our traffic declined sharply. When we investigated, we found that there were hundreds of thousands of TCP connections (per server) open to a single address, orders of magnitude more than any other address. We blocked this address via "ExitPolicy reject", then another one, and since then things seem to have improved. I have thrown together a small Python script to detect this and generate "ExitPolicy reject" lines automatically: https://github.com/artikel10/surgeprotector This is still experimental, so if you decide to give the script a try, please keep an eye on it. Kind regards, Alexander -- PGP Key: https://dietrich.cx/pgp | 0x52FA4EE1722D54EB

3 3

List number of circuits per connection
by Logforme 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

I run the relay 8F6A78B1EA917F2BF221E87D14361C050A70CCC3 Like most relays mine has been targeted by the DoS attack. Hundreds of VPS IPs creating millions of IP connections. This I mitigated with rules in my firewall. Looking at the firewall counters it looks like that attack has now stopped. However the relay is still overloaded from lots of circuit creations. Normally my little relay reports around 100K circuits open in the log file but since the overloading started it's closer to 1M circuits open. All these circuit creations put a strain on the CPU, sometime pegging it at 100% (4 core i5-4670K CPU @ 3.40GHz). Worse, it seems to eat memory. Normally the tor process uses about 3GB (out of 8GB) but I have seen it quickly shoot up to using all memory and all swap. I assume this is because of the circuit creation DoS (it's new behavior) and what causes the oom killer to kill the tor process at least once a day or so. So, how do I mitigate the circuit creation DoS? My immediate thought is to identify if there are a few IPs responsible for the majority and add those to my firewall naughty list. Is there a way to query the tor process about number of open circuits mapped to IP addresses?

3 4

bridge down
by Anonforpeace 20 Oct '22

20 Oct '22

Hello: My Tor Bridge has been down for awhile as I was moving to a new home. I have been trying to bring it up again and have been receiving the messages you see below. I have checked the the tor project status and see that there is a Ddos attack affecting the network. Is that why I am getting this or am I doing something wrong? Thank you. darkhoodie@darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF:~$ sudo systemctl enable --now tor.service Synchronizing state of tor.service with SysV service script with /lib/systemd/systemd-sysv-install. Executing: /lib/systemd/systemd-sysv-install enable tor darkhoodie@darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF:~$ sudo systemctl restart tor.service darkhoodie@darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF:~$ journalctl -e -u tor@default Oct 16 00:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 00:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 01:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 01:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [59 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 01:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 01:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 02:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 02:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 02:14:16 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: No circuits are opened. Relaxed timeout for circuit 875 (a Testing circuit 3-hop circuit in state doing handshakes with channel state open) to 60000ms. However, it appears the> Oct 16 02:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 02:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 03:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 03:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 03:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 03:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 04:00:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 1 day 12:00 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 6.47 MB and received 36.85 MB. I've received 0 connections on IPv4 and 0 on IPv6. I've made 161 c> Oct 16 04:00:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: While not bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 28998071 (server descriptor fetch); 2431916 (consensus network-status fetch); 310310 (microdescriptor fetch) Oct 16 04:00:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Heartbeat: Since last heartbeat message, I have seen 0 unique clients. Oct 16 04:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 04:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [59 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 04:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 04:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 05:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 05:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 05:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 05:24:16 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: No circuits are opened. Relaxed timeout for circuit 920 (a Testing circuit 3-hop circuit in state doing handshakes with channel state open) to 60000ms. However, it appears the> Oct 16 05:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 06:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 06:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 06:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 06:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 07:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 07:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [59 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 07:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 07:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 08:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 08:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 08:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 08:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 09:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 09:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 09:02:21 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your network connection speed appears to have changed. Resetting timeout to 60000ms after 18 timeouts and 103 buildtimes. Oct 16 09:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 09:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 10:00:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 1 day 18:00 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 7.75 MB and received 43.92 MB. I've received 0 connections on IPv4 and 0 on IPv6. I've made 188 c> Oct 16 10:00:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: While not bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 34600394 (server descriptor fetch); 2858305 (consensus network-status fetch); 361968 (microdescriptor fetch) Oct 16 10:00:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Heartbeat: Since last heartbeat message, I have seen 0 unique clients. Oct 16 10:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 10:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [59 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 10:20:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 10:40:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 11:00:14 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Your server has not managed to confirm reachability for its ORPort(s) at 100.2.224.20:443. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Plea> Oct 16 11:00:15 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Unable to find IPv6 address for ORPort 443. You might want to specify IPv4Only to it or set an explicit address or set Address. [60 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3540 > Oct 16 11:05:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF systemd[1]: Stopping Anonymizing overlay network for TCP... Oct 16 11:05:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit now. Oct 16 11:05:13 darkhoodie-HP-Compaq-Pro-6300-SFF Tor[16182]: Delaying directory fetches: We are hibernating or shutting down. Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

4 4

Most useful bridge distribution
by Thoughts 12 Oct '22

12 Oct '22

Hi all - Running a bridge, and per some stats I saw earlier Moat seems to be the most popular distribution method. Just curious is something else is recommended? Some seem less secure than others, but I don't know the methods used to prevent abuse. Would appreciate guidance. Cheers, Kevin

2 1

Tor 0.4.6.x is unsupported, please upgrade
by Georg Koppen 09 Oct '22

09 Oct '22

Hello! To repeat what recently[1] got brought up: it's time to get relays upgraded in case they are running the EOL 0.4.6.x Tor series. We'll start reaching out to operators with valid contact information this week and plan to reject relays which are still on 0.4.6.x in about 5 weeks from now on at the end of September. You can follow along that process in our bug tracker[2] if you want. For the general processes around dealing with EOL relays in the Tor network see my mail from last October[3]. Feedback and improvements are welcome, as always. Georg [1] https://twitter.com/torproject/status/1557392816250441728 [2] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/network-health/team/-/issues/252 [3] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2021-October/019862.html

4 4

many connections
by Sandro Auerbach 09 Oct '22

09 Oct '22

Hello, After changing my server, the connections settled between 6000-8000 incoming connections in the first 2 weeks of the warm-up period. (Guard/non exit) Since it seems that many relays have been overloaded in the last few weeks, I think a big DDOS is running again. Yesterday I tried to reduce the bandwidth a bit.I've just looked again and see over 26800 incoming connections. Is this even possible or is it more of a bug in the system?30 minutes later still 22000 connections... Have you observed something similar? Many greetings Sandro

4 9

'nudging' is a crime - 1B98468097E7F3FF102926423DF44315E414CBCF: down
by Fred 08 Oct '22

08 Oct '22

1 0

Lots of dropped onion skins
by Jonathan D. Proulx 08 Oct '22

08 Oct '22

HI All, I was checkign up on my (middle) relay stats: https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/9715C81BA8C5B0C698882035F75C… and saw an "overload" banner, after some learning I see lots of onionskins being dropped in the metrics: tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="tap",action="processed"} 890 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="tap",action="dropped"} 0 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="fast",action="processed"} 0 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="fast",action="dropped"} 0 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="ntor",action="processed"} 3096501 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="ntor",action="dropped"} 2827649 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="ntor_v3",action="processed"} 3096501 tor_relay_load_onionskins_total{type="ntor_v3",action="dropped"} 2827649 processed and dropped are growing pretty rapidly so maybe this is a know and ongoing attack, but I don't see why I would be dropping. The system has 8 corse and 8G RAM neither of which seems stressed. Less than 2G or RAM is in use and systrrem load (top under linux) reports ~70% idle (I guess if they're coming in really tight bursts it could average to that and still be droppong peaks). Anyone know what this is or have hints as to where to look? Thanks, -Jon

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] consensus weight tanking
by Me 08 Oct '22

08 Oct '22

Thanks for the prompt response. My apologies for the omission in the original post. My relays are called 405test1 and 405test2. Both relays are vm's on a proxmox server with the only difference in set up being port numbers. I have had both operating since July 2022 with no issues. Thanks again! On October 6, 2022 4:59:22 AM CDT, tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org 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. Re: Moving middle relays to bridges? (Chris) > 2. Consensus weight tanking (Me) > 3. Re: Consensus weight tanking (Georg Koppen) > 4. Re: many connections (Chris) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 05:32:20 -0400 >From: Chris <tor(a)wcbsecurity.com> >To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Moving middle relays to bridges? >Message-ID: <2d1975a2-6362-48d3-8dc3-05bd16797797(a)wcbsecurity.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Bridges more or less function as guard relays except their IP addresses are not known. Having a bridge with an IP address that's already know somehow defeats the purpose. > >As far as I'm concerned the list of relays should not be public. Only exit relays need to be known for liability reasons. Once we stop publishing IP addresses of relays, the need for bridges will be greatly reduced. > >That being said, I believe if your relay is no longer a relay for a week, it will be removed from the public relay list. Not sure if it will be removed from the censors' list. >?? > > >-------- Original Message -------- >From: "Isaac Grover, Aileron I.T." <igrover(a)aileronit.com> >Sent: Tue Oct 04 12:15:52 EDT 2022 >To: "tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org" <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> >Subject: [tor-relays] Moving middle relays to bridges? > >Good morning, > >According to tor metrics, there have been nearly three times the number of relays as bridges over the last three months so I would like to move my handful of middle relays to bridges. They will keep their same IP address. Is there a best practice with regards to doing this so the directories don't get confused? > >Make your day great, >Isaac Grover > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >tor-relays mailing list >tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >

2 1

Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests
by teamcat＠genocide.fun 08 Oct '22

08 Oct '22

Hello, After setting up a relay, I noticed that my log file was full of "Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests" messages. This seems odd to me, as htop reports that my CPU and memory usage is nowhere near full. I'm running on two cores and 8 GB of RAM, and it's averaging about 40% usage on both cores and 2 GB of RAM usage. I've used the tor-ddos iptables rules that were suggested in a previous message thread, but it doesn't seem to have done anything to address the problem. (https://github.com/Enkidu-6/tor-ddos) I've also configured /etc/sysctl.conf to support a traffic flow as outlined in the github repo. Here is the link to the metrics page for my relay. https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/74181AB4D1A7D403ED9F190FAC92… Is this something that I should be concerned about, and work to mitigate? I am able to migrate my relay to much more powerful hardware, but obviously that would incur additional cost, so if there is some way to fully utilize my existing hardware I would prefer that. Regards, Evan

1 0

(FYI) Rejecting outdated snowflake proxies
by gus 07 Oct '22

07 Oct '22

Hello everyone, As part of scaling snowflake bridge and adding distributed snowflake server support[1], this week the Anti-censorship Team started to reject *outdated* snowflake proxies that can't support this feature (distributed server support). This will result in a loss of 30% of unrestricted NAT proxies. Read below the instructions how to check your snowflake proxy version: - WebExtension: 0.6.2. - Docker: To check the version: $ docker run thetorproject/snowflake-proxy -v should include "-allowed-relay-hostname-pattern" in the output. To update: $ docker pull thetorproject/snowflake-proxy - Standalone with Go Toolchain: To check the version: $ proxy -v should include "-allowed-relay-hostname-pattern" in the output. To update: $ go install git.torproject.org/pluggable-transports/snowflake.git/v2/proxy@latest If you need help, please check this Forum post: https://forum.torproject.net/t/please-update-your-snowflake-proxy-to-help-u… Thank you! gus [1] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/snow… -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead

2 1

Consensus weight tanking
by Me 06 Oct '22

06 Oct '22

Good day, Not sure if this would be the proper avenue to pursue this. I operate a couple of middle relays from my home server. All seemed well until this morning. Three days ago one was promoted to guard status while the other lags behind. This morning I check the Tor metrics page and the consensus weight graphs on both relays have bottomed out. The other metrics do not have appeared to have remained normal for daily operations. Any suggestions or input are greatly appreciated

2 1

Moving middle relays to bridges?
by Isaac Grover, Aileron I.T. 05 Oct '22

05 Oct '22

Good morning, According to tor metrics, there have been nearly three times the number of relays as bridges over the last three months so I would like to move my handful of middle relays to bridges. They will keep their same IP address. Is there a best practice with regards to doing this so the directories don't get confused? Make your day great, Isaac Grover

3 2

Thoughts about potentially abusive config option for exit nodes
by abuse-node49＠posteo.de 03 Oct '22

03 Oct '22

I did not manage to find anywhere on the new website the current config options of the torrc. So I ask the question here, although it may be already outdated. This is the third time I have had contact with the police about Exits Relays. That's why it occurred to me that someone might be acting targeted, because I run more than one node. Looking for configurations that allow dedicated IP addresses, I found the torrc-config option 'StrictNodes 1' in conjunction with 'ExitNodes [IP/Nickname/Key]' on the web. There were also hints that something had been changed before, but I tried it on a local installation. The goal was to use a specific exit address. StrictNodes 1 ExitNodes [MY_EXIT_NODE_IP] First I had a typo and the Tor service did not start. After the correction it worked and I got into the network. The conclusion remained that Tor accepts these configuration lines. The problem with this is, should this config line really allow a dedicated exit as the sole exit point into the network, the operator of that exit could be targeted and harmed with illegal traffic. In Metrics it is easy to show whole Tor families that always belong to a single operator. It would be nice if the developers remove the possibility to specify a dedicated IP address/nickname/key, if not already done. The config option 'Exitnodes {COUNTRY_CODE}' should remain though. Kind regards, Olaf

1 0

bridge distribution
by potlatch 28 Sep '22

28 Sep '22

[0] FB45183DD82D572CA2B2641C1AB0EB0D8CE7B858 Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

3 2

bridge distribution
by potlatch 25 Sep '22

25 Sep '22

People, I have a bridge [0] with a bridge distribution mechanism of "non". It's been that way since May 2022. What gives? Should I remove it from the network as unless> potlatch Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

1 0

Best practices for the hosting provider of Tor exit nodes?
by Isaac Grover, Aileron I.T. 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

Good afternoon, As I'm reaching out to hosting providers worldwide to see if hosting Tor exit nodes is within their ToS and AUP, most hosting providers are requesting hardware specifications and bandwidth requirements; however, I would like to point them to a resource showing best practices for the hosting provider, and maybe one that shows expectations of the Tor exit node operator as well - for example SWIP'ing the IP address(es) to the exit node operator - so that the hosting provider knows what the exit node operator expects of them, and what they should expect of the exit node operator. Does such a resource exist, and if not, what would you request/add in such a resource? Make your day great, Isaac Grover

1 0

knock knock, police is here
by volker.mink＠gmx.de 13 Sep '22

13 Sep '22

Hi folks. On Tuesday morning police knocked on my door, performing a full house search. Some Nazis used TOR to send nazi-emails to several schools in Germany. Unfortunately their mails left one of my Exit Servers from dark- to clearweb, so an ip address, registered on my name, was the last stamp. Now im accused of Volksverhetzung (german, try to find a good translation). It means spreading bad nazi bullshit to the internet. I can take this down by showing them German Telemediengesetz §8, which protects TOR operators in Germany. Unfortunately they found some dope (yea, 420guy here) during the house search, which makes thing even more complicated. Now I am considering shutting down all my exits. I promise you guys, there is nothing more bad than a police house search in the early morning hourse. Even a burglary would be less worse. Burglars come, steal, go and you never hear again from them. Police comes, searches through all your belongings, destroys your privacy, is allowed to take ALL what they want - and they will send you bad bad letters afterwards. What are your thoughts about this? Best regards, volker

5 6

a characteristic of recent attacks?
by Scott Bennett 01 Sep '22

01 Sep '22

The vast majority of recent surges of unusual activity on my humble relay, which I take as likely being attacks, result in large changes in the hour-to-hour statistic shown below in these lines extracted from the hourly heartbeat message groups. Aug 31 19:02:28.549 [notice] Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since startup: 15 circuits killed with too many cells, 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses, 14 same address concurrent connections rejected, 0 connections rejected, 5 single hop clients refused, 1706742 INTRODUCE2 rejected. Aug 31 20:02:28.546 [notice] Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since startup: 15 circuits killed with too many cells, 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses, 14 same address concurrent connections rejected, 0 connections rejected, 5 single hop clients refused, 1706742 INTRODUCE2 rejected. Aug 31 21:02:28.549 [notice] Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since startup: 15 circuits killed with too many cells, 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses, 14 same address concurrent connections rejected, 0 connections rejected, 5 single hop clients refused, 1706742 INTRODUCE2 rejected. Aug 31 22:02:28.544 [notice] Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since startup: 15 circuits killed with too many cells, 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses, 14 same address concurrent connections rejected, 0 connections rejected, 5 single hop clients refused, 1770970 INTRODUCE2 rejected. Aug 31 23:02:28.556 [notice] Heartbeat: DoS mitigation since startup: 16 circuits killed with too many cells, 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses, 14 same address concurrent connections rejected, 0 connections rejected, 5 single hop clients refused, 2013266 INTRODUCE2 rejected. The most recent such surge appears to have ended less than an hour ago. Note that there was no change in the count of "INTRODUCE2 rejected" for many hours leading up to the onset of unusual activity, though I've only shown three prior hours' worth. Then there is an increase of 63227 in this count during the first hour and another 41296 during the second hour. Often during these periods the input appears to be maxed out, and sometimes the output rate is still higher by several hundred KB/s. My question is, do other relay operators whose relays are being attacked see the same phenomenon? In addition, if someone knows of an effective way to turn such things aside at less cost than be simply leaving them to tor to deal with, I'd love to know about it, too, though I suspect there may be no such method. Thanks in advance for any relevant information! Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at sdf.org *xor* bennett at freeshell.org * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************

2 2

One of my relays does not get a "consensus weight" value and is not in the list.
by failing.flyaway443＠mailer.me 30 Aug '22

30 Aug '22

Hello everyone, I have a question about another relay I deployed a few days ago. This time I set up two relays on a server with only one IP address, almost simultaneously. They are "Infinity1" and "Infinity2". I kept looking at the Relay Search to see how everything was going, and Infinity1 already has a consensus weight of 36000, but Infinity2's value is still at 1. So I looked at the big consensus list, and sure enough, it only has Infinity1 in it. Could it be that the Directory Authorities do not accept Infinity2 for some reason, or should I just be patient a bit longer? I also noticed that Infinity1 is already moving an average of 15Mb/s of traffic, while Infinity2 is still hanging around in the Kb range. Of course I did everything correctly, MyFamily and ContactInfo are set. Does anyone here know what this could be? The fingerprint of Infinity2 is 9F459D4756AA61D7ED05D000EA4C757FA19AC401. Thank you everyone for taking the time to think about this for a moment and have a great day to you all! Best

1 1

OOM Bytes Cell
by Nyasaki Server 29 Aug '22

29 Aug '22

Hi, my node is running for a while now, today I noticed that the cell oom bytes has risen, which never happened before. Is this concerning? What does the cell value mean? Im thankful for every input! BR Nyasaki

1 0