- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] Previous Guard not getting Guard flag back
by starlight.2017q4＠binnacle.cx 23 Mar '18

23 Mar '18

>While I understand that my relay lost the guard flag because of a weekend >of downtime, I would expect that it would get it back after a while of >stable again? Anyone able to shed some light on when it will get the flag >back? >https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/924B24AFA7F075D059E8EEB284CC… Guard flag calculation is somewhat involved (due to several get-out-jail promotions/bypasses), but the essential part is weighted uptime in excess of the median uptime of guard candidates, or 98% whichever is lower. Presently the authorities have it somewhere around 96% (they do not publish the value). Your relay is at about 91% and will be back as a Guard in less than five days when it will hit 97%. The attached XLS shows it roughly, left side today and right side as-of 3/26. Uptime data came from the "1_month" section of https://onionoo.torproject.org/uptime?search=NSDFreedom Built this sheet for myself recently and simply stuffed in data for your relay. Enjoy. P.S. If anyone spots flaws in the approach, please comment.

1 5

tor-instance-create vs. /etc/tor/torrc
by Igor Mitrofanov 22 Mar '18

22 Mar '18

Hi, I use tor-instance-create to spawn a number of relay instances. However, there seems to be one extra instance running - the default one that reads /etc/tor/torrc (and not /etc/tor/instances/INSTANCE/torrc). How do I disable that default tor relay? It opens port 9050 and does who else knows what by default. I can delete /etc/tor/torrc and it seems to do the trick, however, I am not sure how permanent this change will be with automatic package updates. Thanks!

4 3

exit operators: DNS failure rate increased - please check your DNS
by nusenu 22 Mar '18

22 Mar '18

Dear Exit relay operators, first of all thanks for running exit relays! One of the crucial service that you provide in addition to forwarding TCP streams is DNS resolution for tor clients. Exits relays which fail to resolve hostnames are barely useful for tor clients. We noticed that lately the failure rates did increase again and would like to urge you to visit Arthur's "Tor Exit DNS Timeouts" page that shows you the DNS error rate for exit relays: https://arthuredelstein.net/exits/ (the page is usually updated once a day) Please consider checking your DNS if your exit consistently shows a high (>=20%) timeout rate - and make sure you run an up to date tor version. If you are an exit operator but have no (or no working) ContactInfo, please consider updating that field in your torrc so we can reach you if something is wrong with your relay. thanks for caring, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

1 1

Previous Guard not getting Guard flag back
by Matthew Glennon 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

While I understand that my relay lost the guard flag because of a weekend of downtime, I would expect that it would get it back after a while of stable again? Anyone able to shed some light on when it will get the flag back? https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/924B24AFA7F075D059E8EEB284CC… Thanks -- Matthew Glennon matthew(a)glennon.online PGP Signing Available Upon Request https://keybase.io/crazysane

2 3

Hidden service error in log
by Gary 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Hello. I made a "hello world" hidden service and I had to following message in the logs about exceeding launch limit. I have not seen this before. I had one onion for a while and added a second one recently - not sure if that matters as it is only complaining about the first one. I am not sure what / why it is exceeding launch limit, I would be grateful if someone could explain it to me. Thanks. Mar 14 12:43:24.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Hidden service 4l53ozkhv******* exceeded launch limit with 10 intro points in the last 202 seconds. Intro circuit launches are limited to 10 per 300 seconds. Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Service configured in "/var/lib/tor/hidden_service/": Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 0 at [scrubbed]: circuit is open Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 1 at [scrubbed]: circuit is open Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 2 at [scrubbed]: circuit is doing handshakes Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 3 at [scrubbed]: circuit is open Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Service configured in "/var/lib/tor/hidden2/": Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 0 at [scrubbed]: circuit is doing handshakes Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 1 at [scrubbed]: circuit is open Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 2 at [scrubbed]: circuit is open Mar 14 12:43:32.000 [warn] Intro point 3 at [scrubbed]: circuit is open Mar 14 12:44:25.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done.

3 3

Atlas Country Flag
by Anders Burmeister 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Gentlemen How come, after update to latest tor version. the small flags at Atlas start to behave abnormal? The case is, I have 6 relays: 2 France 1 Canada 1 Polen 1 Germany 1 UK The one in Canada and the two in France shows the correct Country Flag. But Germany, Polen and UK shows the France Flag. Should I take it personally, or just be patient and drink more coffee? Best regards Anders Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

3 5

(no subject)
by Pat Cun 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

1

1 0

(no subject)
by wodencafe 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

hi Tor https://goo.gl/WCKrme wodencafe

1 0

stem library: huge difference between resolvers "proc" and others, eg. "netstat"
by Toralf Förster 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

I do wonder about the differences of "proc" versus the other 3 ("netstat, "lsof" and "ss") related to the Inbound/Outbound values at my Tor relay. As an example I copied below the output of "proc" and "netstat". Does anybody have a clue about those differences? mr-fox ~ # python ~/stem/docs/_static/example/relay_connections.py --ctrlport 9051 --resolver proc 0.3.4.0-alpha-dev uptime: 06:48:29 flags: Exit, Fast, Guard, Running, Stable, V2Dir, Valid +------------------------------+------+------+ | Type | IPv4 | IPv6 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | Inbound to our ORPort | 2107 | 6 | | Inbound to our DirPort | 15 | 0 | | Outbound to a relay | 1753 | 0 | | Outbound exit traffic | 155 | 302 | | Outbound uncategorized | 119 | 0 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | Total | 4149 | 308 | +------------------------------+------+------+ +------------------------------+------+------+ | Exit Port | IPv4 | IPv6 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | 80 (HTTP) | 111 | 61 | | 143 (IMAP) | 1 | 0 | | 443 (HTTPS) | 0 | 229 | | 465 (SMTP) | 1 | 0 | | 993 (IMAPS) | 13 | 0 | | 5222 (Jabber) | 8 | 2 | | 5223 (Jabber) | 6 | 0 | | 7777 | 1 | 0 | | 8080 (HTTP Proxy) | 4 | 4 | | 8333 (Bitcoin) | 2 | 2 | | 8888 (NewsEDGE) | 2 | 0 | | 50002 (Electrum Bitcoin SSL) | 6 | 4 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | Total | 155 | 302 | +------------------------------+------+------+ mr-fox ~ # python ~/stem/docs/_static/example/relay_connections.py --ctrlport 9051 --resolver netstat 0.3.4.0-alpha-dev uptime: 06:48:41 flags: Exit, Fast, Guard, Running, Stable, V2Dir, Valid +------------------------------+------+------+ | Type | IPv4 | IPv6 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | Inbound to our ORPort | 4883 | 6 | | Inbound to our DirPort | 35 | 0 | | Inbound to our ControlPort | 1 | 0 | | Outbound to a relay | 4174 | 0 | | Outbound exit traffic | 390 | 293 | | Outbound uncategorized | 267 | 0 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | Total | 9750 | 299 | +------------------------------+------+------+ +------------------------------+------+------+ | Exit Port | IPv4 | IPv6 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | 80 (HTTP) | 300 | 68 | | 110 (POP3) | 1 | 0 | | 143 (IMAP) | 4 | 0 | | 443 (HTTPS) | 0 | 214 | | 465 (SMTP) | 1 | 0 | | 1883 | 1 | 0 | | 3128 (SQUID) | 1 | 0 | | 5222 (Jabber) | 21 | 2 | | 5223 (Jabber) | 18 | 0 | | 6667 (IRC) | 4 | 0 | | 7777 | 2 | 0 | | 8080 (HTTP Proxy) | 14 | 3 | | 8333 (Bitcoin) | 8 | 2 | | 8888 (NewsEDGE) | 3 | 0 | | 50002 (Electrum Bitcoin SSL) | 12 | 4 | +------------------------------+------+------+ | Total | 390 | 293 | +------------------------------+------+------+ -- Toralf PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E

2 4

hourly CPU spike at <hour>:02
by Toralf Förster 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

caused by both of the 2 Tor exits here at a Linux server. I do wonder what both processes do exactly 2 minutaes past each hour for about half a minute? -- Toralf PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E

2 2

new Tor exit
by Arisbe 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Hello all, I rolled out a new Tor exit [0] this morning West Coast U.S. time. It's special to me because I've negotiated the trust of a host company in Albania. I was the first Tor relay in that country and now I'm the first exit relay there. This trust took me a year to establish. I run a number of relays-both exit and non-exit. I run a dozen bridges for people that need the ISP connectivity. I host classes in Southwest Washington State to teach ordinary people how to be safe while they're on the internet. I teach high-school pupils how to set up and operate Tor relays. Here is my problem: The aforementioned relay has been on for nearly 24-hours and not a single user has frequented my doorsteps. I have had seven of the nine authorities parked in this node for most of the time but no inbound connections (except for those referenced and two hackers) and no outbound or exit connections. There is nothing technically wrong with the installation so what gives. I this an issue of administrative paperwork? While I am very supportive of Tor, I am not with unlimited patience. I have a job, wife and kids and money pit house to maintain. Thanks for giving me a bit of advice to make this guy blossom. If I don't understand, I apologize to all. Arisbe [0] 516D1B9E22484202322828D8CAC30325030017E2

4 7

How helpful is it to run your own DNS server?
by torix＠protonmail.com 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Dear All, I have seen mentions on this list of people using pi-hole and unbound DNS servers in their setups, and I wondered if others had considered opinions as to the usefulness of doing this. Pi-hole's biggest feature seems to be their filter lists to block extra/evil DNS queries, while Unbound seems to feature caching and validating functions. I would think that a DNS cache that kept queries for a long time would certainly keep most of your queries out of an ISP's DNS logs. Or are there DNS providers that are relatively immune to their logs being requited by others? TIA, --Torix Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

3 2

Tor program
by Arisbe 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Hello People, Does anyone have a graphic or verbal discussion about the Tor network that they would share? I want to give a talk at the public library about the uses, advantage and how-to's of Tor. I want to get my facts correct before I commit to this task. Thanks

5 5

"Received http status code 404 ("Consensus is too old")" keeps popping up in my logs
by nottryingtobelame＠protonmail.com 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

I'm just wondering if there is anything I can do to resolve this. The relay is running ntpd and consistently keeps the right time, and I'm not getting this from any other server (it's the same IP address every time). Is this of concern or should I just ignore it? Will it hinder the relay's performance when I'm getting this error? Apologies for all the questions; I'm new to the mailing list. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

2 1

DoS statistics from EA4366BCDCA6167B8CFF70E41D8CD1EE9968E445
by robink 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Running tor 0.3.3.3 Mar 15 19:00:44.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:00:48.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:01:17.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:03:01.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:03:52.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:03:52.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:01.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:01.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:08.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:09.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:10.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:10.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:16.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:16.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:35.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:04:35.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:04:49.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:05:16.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:06:05.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:06:11.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:06.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:34.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:47.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:07:56.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:08:04.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:08:12.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:08:12.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back upMar 15 19:09:05.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:09:15.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:10:21.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:10:59.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:11:16.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:11:42.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:12:31.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:13:03.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:13:24.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 5 days 17:59 hours, with 2819 circuits open. I've sent 621.50 GB and received 636.02 GB.Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 19393/19393 TAP, 119870/119870 NTor.Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 110064 v4 connections; and received 35 v1 connections, 187 v2 connections, 949 v3 connections, and 621316 v4 connections. Mar 15 19:13:30.000 [notice] DoS mitigation since startup: 0 circuits rejected, 0 marked addresses. 0 connections closed. 64 single hop clients refused.Mar 15 19:13:44.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:14:02.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:14:21.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendezvous (pending)Mar 15 19:15:29.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:15:30.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back upMar 15 19:15:37.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Mar 15 19:15:37.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.4.4:53 is back up Best regards, Robin

4 4

middle relay connexions dropped in half
by torix＠protonmail.com 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

Dear All, On March 5 I changed to the newest version 3.2.10 on a middle relay I run. I went away for a few days, checked today, and found that my traffic is down, and my connexions, which were around 2,000 since December, are now about 1,000. Consensus weight is still the same (about 450) as it has been before. And my throughput is down from 35G/day, hitting that max most days to about 23-26G/day. Don't know if this is because it is a better Tor and is filtering out extra crap now or not, but just thought I'd mention it, as the Tor version is the only thing that changed.\ --Torix Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

5 8

ISP Nat
by Paul Templeton 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

Hi All, I have an ISP who has started NATting inbound traffic and has screwed DNS resolution. Is there a way to bind DNS requests to use a specific IP address (Have multiple) that is not affected with this NATting problem. Paul 609662E824251C283164243846C035C803940378

3 7

Best tor version
by Даннил Николаев 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

What is best to run on relay? Version 0.2 or 0.3?

3 2

Relay node requirements
by sqrrm 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

The distributed bitcoin exchange Bisq is reliant on Tor as a communication layer and as such dependent on its stability. To support the network we're looking at incentivizing contributors to run their own Tor relay nodes. For this we need some recommendations on what setup is needed as a minimum to be actually useful for the network. I've run a relay node on a dedicated server which seems to be quite a bit of overkill, preferably it would run on as cheap a vps as possible. I've been checking on metrics.torproject.org on stats for my own node, is that the best way to monitor the nodes? If this doesn't seem worthwhile pursuing, please let me know why and I'll stop. Cheers sqrrm

3 2

Relay operators meetup @ CSOA Forte Prenestino, Rome, Italy
by Vasilis 13 Mar '18

13 Mar '18

Dear relay operators and *Tor people, A number of people will participate this Thursday Thursday 15/03/18, 18:30 @ CSOA Forte Prenestino in Rome, Italy [1]. Hope to see many of you there. [1] https://blog.torproject.org/events/relay-operators-meetup-csoa-forte-prenes… Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162 Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5FBF70B1D1260162

1 0

Experimental DoS mitigation is in tor master
by Roger Dingledine 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

Hi folks, Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues. We've merged https://bugs.torproject.org/24902 into tor git master. We'll be putting out an 0.3.3.2-alpha release in not too long for wider testing, and eventually backporting it all the way back to 0.2.9, but if you're the sort who enjoys running code from git, now is a great time to try it and let us know of problems and/or successes. Here's the changelog stanza: o Major features: - Give relays some defenses against the recent network overload. We start with three defenses (default parameters in parentheses). First: if a single client address makes too many connections (>100), hang up on further connections. Second: if a single client address makes circuits too quickly (more than 3 per second, with an allowed burst of 90) while also having too many connections open (3), refuse new create cells for the next while (1-2 hours). Third: if a client asks to establish a rendezvous point to you directly, ignore the request. These defenses can be manually controlled by new torrc options, but relays will also take guidance from consensus parameters, so there's no need to configure anything manually. Implements ticket 24902. To repeat that last part: there are a bunch of torrc options you can use to tweak stuff, but you can leave it all at the defaults and it will read its instructions out of the consensus parameters: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#consensusparams Woo, --Roger

12 22

2 entries in tor relay search
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

OK, thank you. Then I let it as it is. Peter The "UbuntuCoreNNN" one is "tor-middle-relay" snap. You can remove it if you are managing your own tor. Incidentally, tor-middle-relay snap is being updated right now to v0.3.1.10. You need not do anything. Updates are automatic. On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:45 PM, <peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at > wrote: > > I've installed tor and the relay via ubuntu-software. > > Did you install a Snap package of "tor-middle-relay"? > > > > On Mar 10, 2018 23:38, <peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at > wrote: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > Can anybody explain this: > > > > Peter > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tor-relays mailing list > > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > -- Chad Miller http://chad.org gpg:a806deac30420066 _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

2 entries in tor relay search
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

I've installed tor and the relay via ubuntu-software. Did you install a Snap package of "tor-middle-relay"? On Mar 10, 2018 23:38, <peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at > wrote: > > Hello! > > Can anybody explain this: > > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

2 entries in tor relay search
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 11 Mar '18

11 Mar '18

Hello! Can anybody explain this: Peter

2 1

FreeBSD 11.1 ZFS Tor Image
by Conrad Rockenhaus 10 Mar '18

10 Mar '18

Hello All, If anyone is interested, I have a RAW image of a FreeBSD 11.1 ZFS image that is fully configured and ready to run Tor. Right now it's an eight GB image, but I'm reducing the size by removing all of the extra stuff on it from the upgrade from FreeBSD 11 to 11.1. If you're interested in the image let me know. This image has been fully tested on OVH's Openstack infrastructure, so if you're interested in running it on their infrastructure, let me know and I can walk you through it, or you're more than welcome to host is within my cloud at cost (it's a low monthly rate and unlimited bandwidth). Regards, Conrad Rockenhaus

15 38