- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Cloud question
by Arisbe 10 Mar '18

10 Mar '18

Gentlemen / Ladies, Simple question: Do Tor middle relays and bridges work on cloud systems? Thanks for the intelligence.

2 2

DoS mitigation taking hold!
by starlight.2017q4＠binnacle.cx 07 Mar '18

07 Mar '18

Back to normal! Check out the final two log entries. Thank you David Goulet and all the Tor devs!!! Feb 24 22:45 Tor 0.3.3.2-alpha (...) running on Linux with . . . . . . Mar 2 21:09 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 247305/247482 TAP, 4620773/4622133 NTor. Mar 3 03:09 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 969715/1129528 TAP, 5195458/5196319 NTor. Mar 3 09:09 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 1847030/2202846 TAP, 5027827/5029068 NTor. Mar 3 13:24 Tor 0.3.3.3-alpha (...) running on Linux with . . . Mar 3 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 93572/93573 TAP, 5009863/5010456 NTor. Mar 4 01:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 169018/262021 TAP, 4539061/4539069 NTor. Mar 4 07:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 169753/235140 TAP, 4436073/4436112 NTor. Mar 4 13:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 119517/119547 TAP, 4040264/4041342 NTor. Mar 4 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 1098774/1119662 TAP, 4087379/4088944 NTor. Mar 5 01:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 223758/267280 TAP, 3828115/3828568 NTor. Mar 5 07:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 99975/113118 TAP, 3537541/3537974 NTor. Mar 5 13:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 173710/175951 TAP, 3792871/3793745 NTor. Mar 5 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 657254/747645 TAP, 3678773/3679332 NTor. Mar 6 01:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 606685/704653 TAP, 3186116/3186477 NTor. Mar 6 07:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 582036/708742 TAP, 2043464/2043654 NTor. Mar 6 13:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 54266/54266 TAP, *** 586327/586328 NTor. *** Mar 6 19:24 Circuit handshake stats since last time: 122817/122817 TAP, *** 558229/558231 NTor. ***

1 0

Exit Relay
by Gary 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

Hello. I have configured my relay (jaffacakemonster2) to be non exit, however arm shows me the following (I edited out IPs' & some lines after copy/paste from connection screen for others security / brevity) Connections (1878 inbound, 2113 outbound, 19 exit, 1 control) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:443 (HTTPS) UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.4m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:4000 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.4m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:9001 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 1.0m (EXIT) IP --> <scrubbed>:26155 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 3.5m (EXIT) Atlas reports the flags Fast, Running & Valid. Lines as copied & pasted from torrc: ## Uncomment this if you do *not* want your relay to allow any exit traffic. ## (Relays allow exit traffic by default.) ExitRelay 0 What is going on here? I am confused as to why there is exit connections but I am not / dont want an exit relay. Thanks.

4 12

Shutdown relay 366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E, upcoming shutdown 328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192
by Stijn Jonker 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

Dear all, This is to announce that with immediate effect I have shutdown relay sjc02/366BC592BC0154C0CD1D35C0E77D8F2C7F0B843E and will do so in about a year and half with sjc01/328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192 as it's a fallback directory. Thanks for all the support on the mailing list, especially with a stupid typo and the joint efforts in fighting the relay (D)DoS. The reasons why, well it's mostly based on personal assumptions, views, values and believes in terms of community/volunteer/project matters whereby quite possibly my views differ from the vast majority as such I don't believe it's appropriate to state those on a relay list. Thanks, Stijn P.S. I'll unsubscribe after this email, in case you believe a follow-up is warranted then feel free to reach out outside of the list.

1 0

CPU saturation attack/abuse
by Dhalgren Tor 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

Upgraded exit to 0.3.3.3 and now seeing a curious CPU saturation attack. Whatever the cause, result is the main event-worker thread going from a normal load level of about 30%/core to 100%/core and staying there for about 30 seconds; then CPU consumption declines back to 30%. Gradual change on ascent and decent. Another characteristic is egress traffic slightly higher than ingress traffic, perhaps 3-4%, where normally egress and ingress flows match precisly. Checked browsing via the node and performance seems fine--no obvious degradation. Elevated NTor circuit creation rates as-of the last heartbeat, from roughly 300k to 700k per-report, but not extreme (at least in a relative sense since late December). Anyone else observed this? Have any idea how the attack works? Captured a debug-level log of a cycle from normal load to full-on-attack but won't have time to analyzed it for a couple of weeks.

3 4

New releases today: please consider upgrading.
by Nick Mathewson 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

Hi! There are new security releases today. The official announcement just went to tor-announce, but I want to make sure that people on this list see it too. In brief: * Directory authorities should upgrade. * Relays running 0.3.2.1-alpha through 0.3.2.9 should upgrade. * Relays running 0.3.3.1-alpha should upgrade. * All other relays may wish to upgrade in order to improve their resistance to denial-of-service attacks. If you build Tor from source, the source code is available at https://dist.torproject.org/ . Packages should be available over the coming days. For the complete announcement, including changelogs, see https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-announce/2018-March/000152.html best wishes, -- Nick

2 1

Firewalls
by TorGate 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

Hi to all, I have a simple question, what is the best firewall solution ? With sourcecode and must be opensource. What do you mean ? regards Steffen TorGate torgate(at)linux-hus.dk OpenGPG 7FD5 65EF A4EF EEF3 7A13 4372 8409 49D6 01A2 0890

3 3

bridge behavior question
by Arisbe 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hello all, I have run a number of Tor nodes for five years but I started adding a few bridges last year. I have one bridge recently installed on a lease VPS that has not reported a single inbound connection in over 40 days (except for Bifroest hanging out). I see up to 4 outbound connections and usually see between 4 and 14 circuits. The IP tables are correct and torrc is copied from successful bridges except for IP address. The Tor version is 0.2.9.14 and the OS is debian 9.0 (stretch). I'm running obfs4proxy. I set ORPort 9001 and ORPort [IPv6]:9001. Tor | Metrics reports Advertised Bandwidth = 8.0 KiB/s for this bridge. Tor | Metrics reports Advertised Bandwidth for another working bridge I have with the same hosting company at 598.7 KiB/s. I suspect this variation is due to lack of connections by the unused bridge. I loaded a speed checker and it reported 72-Mb/s. Can anyone give me some steerage to help me get this bridge productive?

2 1

less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)
by nusenu 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hi, if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. If you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw. This affects currently the 857 fastest relays. regards, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

6 8

One pubblic IP, two or more relay on different ports
by MLTorNode 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

3 3

[WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests
by Vasilis 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

Hi, I see a number of warning log messages on a dedicated server: [WARN] Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more restricted exit policy. [27615 similar message(s) suppressed in last 60 seconds] The relay is running on a dedicated hardware with the following specifications: CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz RAM: 6G Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-5-amd64 Tor version: 0.3.2.9 flags: Fast, Guard, HSDir, Running, Stable, V2Dir, Valid exit policy: reject *:* Setting the NumCPUs option to the actual number of CPUs (2) didn't help. Is this hardware really too old/slow to run a relay on one ethernet Gigabit link? Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162 Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5FBF70B1D1260162

2 4

Port not rechable
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 04 Mar '18

04 Mar '18

OK, but what is this: Mar 03 21:36:31.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory Mar 03 21:51:46.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory Mar 03 21:56:51.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory Tor is now online for about 36 hours, the log says 6 hours because the computer was restarted. This is the latest log: Mar 03 23:45:12.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 0%: Starting Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 80%: Connecting to the Tor network Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Signaled readiness to systemd Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Opening Socks listener on /var/run/tor/socks Mar 03 23:45:24.000 [notice] Opening Control listener on /var/run/tor/control Mar 03 23:45:25.000 [notice] Guessed our IP address as 81.10.248.112 (source: 154.35.175.225). Mar 03 23:45:25.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 85%: Finishing handshake with first hop Mar 03 23:45:26.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 90%: Establishing a Tor circuit Mar 03 23:45:27.000 [notice] Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like client functionality is working. Mar 03 23:45:27.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done Mar 03 23:45:27.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort 81.10.248.112:443 and DirPort 81.10.248.112:80 are reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) Mar 03 23:45:33.000 [notice] New control connection opened. Mar 03 23:46:49.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Mar 03 23:46:52.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Mar 03 23:47:03.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 5:59 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 8.65 MB and received 15.91 MB. Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 12.249%. TLS write overhead: 13% Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 2/2 TAP, 1107/1107 NTor. Mar 04 05:45:24.000 [notice] Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 454 v4 connections; and received 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 635 v4 connections. Mar 04 07:35:06.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and resetting internal state. Mar 04 07:35:06.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". How long does it last until the relay will be in use? What do the "flags" in tor-arm mean? Sometimes it says "Running, V2Dir, Valid" Yours -Peter Am 03.03.2018 um 10:31 schrieb teor: > >> On 3 Mar 2018, at 18:32, peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at wrote: >> >> Mar 03 00:05:38.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. >> Mar 03 00:05:45.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. >> Mar 03 00:09:29.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. > > It is ok. > >> … >> Mar 03 00:52:47.000 [warn] Controller gave us config lines that didn't validate: RelayBandwidthBurst must be at least equal to RelayBandwidthRate. > > You should check these options have the values you want. > > T > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

tor26 dir auth differences
by nusenu 03 Mar '18

03 Mar '18

consensus-health (https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-consensus-health) wrote: > WARNING: The following authorities are missing from the consensus: tor26, dizum > NOTICE: tor26 had 6216 Guard flags in its vote but the consensus had 1855 > NOTICE: tor26 had 0 Exit flags in its vote but the consensus had 777 > NOTICE: tor26 had 7086 Stable flags in its vote but the consensus had 4541 interesting -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

1 0

memory requirements
by notatorserver 03 Mar '18

03 Mar '18

Hi, I have just setup a tor-relay and I am wondering if the resource requirements are still current: "A non-exit relay faster than 40MBit/s should have at least 1 GB of RAM."[1] My relay is sitting at ~2.77G currently. I set the option: MaxMemInQueues 6GB Just wondering if this is any cause for concern? I realize the utilization is less than the limit but I just don't remember relays I have run in the past using this much memory. Thanks [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

2 2

Port not rechable
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 03 Mar '18

03 Mar '18

I've opend the ports in my router. Could anybody be so kind to check my log and tell me wether it's ok or not? Mar 03 00:05:38.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Mar 03 00:05:45.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Mar 03 00:09:29.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. Mar 03 00:52:15.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.14 opening log file. Mar 03 00:52:47.000 [warn] Controller gave us config lines that didn't validate: RelayBandwidthBurst must be at least equal to RelayBandwidthRate. Mar 03 01:03:52.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.14 opening log file. Mar 03 01:04:03.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.14 opening log file. Mar 03 01:04:29.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.14 opening log file. Mar 03 04:33:03.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and resetting internal state. Mar 03 04:33:03.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". Mar 03 04:33:03.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". Mar 03 04:33:03.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.14 opening log file. Mar 03 06:04:27.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 5:59 hours, with 2 circuits open. I've sent 70.69 MB and received 76.91 MB. Mar 03 06:04:27.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 0/0 TAP, 4/4 NTor. Mar 03 06:04:27.000 [notice] Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 64 v4 connections; and received 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 10 v3 connections, and 193 v4 connections. Mar 03 07:35:04.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and resetting internal state. Mar 03 07:35:04.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc". Mar 03 07:35:04.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/etc/tor/torrc". and: Mar 03 07:35:04.000 [notice] Tor 0.2.9.14 opening new log file. Mar 03 08:12:11.000 [warn] Failed to start child process "tor-fw-helper" in state 9: No such file or directory -Peter Am 02.03.2018 um 22:18 schrieb Matthew Finkel: > Hi! > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:34:02PM +0100, peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at wrote: >> OK, now I've set PortForwarding in Tor-Arm from "False" to "True", then restarted Tor: > > Hrm, I'm not sure this will do what you want. In fact, this may do > absolutely nothing. Do you have administative access into your network > router? Maybe there is a website interface you used. This is where you > should configure port forwarding. Unfortunately this is complicated and > not easy plug-n-play. > >> >> ...has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Please check... >> >> I'm going to run a non-exit-relay and I'm going to do this at home. >> >> Peter >> > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

No exit at home !!!
by for this post anon 03 Mar '18

03 Mar '18

Roger say it right: No exit relay at home! I write this mail in anon because I had bad experience with that. I had the experience to get visitors early in the morning from the police department some months ago. After that I must by new computers... Use ISP's only for exits. Or you want "fun". xyz

3 2

Port not rechable
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 03 Mar '18

03 Mar '18

Hi, I'm still trying to run a tor delay. Here's the error: Your server (81.10.248.112:80) has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. But canyouseeme.org said: Your ISP is not blocking port 80 Whats's wrong? Thanks Peter

6 6

Port not rechable
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 02 Mar '18

02 Mar '18

OK, now I've set PortForwarding in Tor-Arm from "False" to "True", then restarted Tor: ...has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Please check... I'm going to run a non-exit-relay and I'm going to do this at home. Peter Am 02.03.2018 um 20:42 schrieb Matthew Finkel: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:27:29PM +0100, peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at wrote: >> Hi, I'm still trying to run a tor delay. Here's the error: >> > > Thank you for running a relay. > >> Your server (81.10.248.112:80) has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. > > I do not see port 80 open, either: > > $ torsocks nc -v 81.10.248.112 80 > Ncat: Version 7.40 ( https://nmap.org/ncat ) > Ncat: Connection timed out. > >> >> But canyouseeme.org said: Your ISP is not blocking port 80 > > Maybe "not blocking" does not mean "is open". > > Are you running this relay at your home? If yes, then that is not > recommended, but you may need to allow port 80 on your firewall/router. > You may need to use port forwarding or add your computer into the DMZ > (if your router supports this). > > If you're not running this relay from home, is the server directly > connected to the Internet or is there a router/switch/blackbox in the > middle? > >> >> Whats's wrong? >> >> Thanks >> >> Peter > >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

Port not rechable
by peter.zehetner＠liwest.at 02 Mar '18

02 Mar '18

There is no firewall installed. Peter Have you double-checked your firewall? -Cody On 03/02/2018 11:27 AM, peter.zehetner(a)liwest.at mailto:peter.zehetner@liwest.at wrote: > > Hi, I'm still trying to run a tor delay. Here's the error: > > Your server (81.10.248.112:80) has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. > > But canyouseeme.org said: Your ISP is not blocking port 80 > > Whats's wrong? > > Thanks > > 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

Upcoming security releases for Tor 0.2.9 and up.
by Nick Mathewson 01 Mar '18

01 Mar '18

Hi! This coming week, we'll be putting out new stable releases for 0.2.9 and later supported branches to fix a few security bugs. The highest-severity bug to be fixed is severity "medium". (See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/Securit… for information about how we rank security issues.) These releases will also backport the anti-DoS features from Tor 0.3.3. Relays and authorities should be sure to upgrade once packages are available; these issues are not high-priority for clients. best wishes, -- Nick

4 5

Unmeasured Flag
by Matthew Glennon 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 So if I'm understanding this correctly, we're still having problems with a bw testing nodes and that is why my relay has the unmetered flag? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.0.76 Comment: https://keybase.io/crypto wsBcBAABCgAGBQJalsdlAAoJEHIAmlM/NGGbpQcH/16WQLlMAAVzx4blIRV2bIJF Hwdyj4FFQ+Ms0hHhj1DwMkB6EMa11kogLA8k+NGim8QeF2Qyobd1lARUXjZdfbV5 s/L6JYYCO+PsJxJY2+nOU41HUps1w5zLfFy+ekxkVwsX8dXq+SVy06+1HXfjY2uT HJnIpkx9/IZWMjJzRv33ylIMDq4u0MltJr+4MRrb5rSn6+9pz9m4z6CeUKJbsiLh nE0YRblkRwfrlVCP3VTaaRyQdMUwWzKwnB9S8dtKGDKb+tYz4QduFuzBf1eGGrO7 cp9GeHiittyBSGylRWveQgbkzwXRGPuUGtabXutQRqGXDvanDtEroHg+hUP0SEw= =b7/2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Re: [tor-relays] less than 3 bw auths available: self-measurement (with 10k cap in effect)
by Stian Fauskanger 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

if your relays behave strangely in terms of bandwidth seen, than this might be due to the fact that there are less than 3 bw auth votes available. If you run a fast relay it is capped to 10k cw. This affects currently the 857 fastest relays. It also affects "low-consensus" relays. I have a bw=5k relay which almost doubled the amount of traffic, increasing steadily from 14.30 UTC until 19.00 UTC [a.k.a. now]. I assume this is because 5k is a much higher percentage of the total bw now compared to when fast nodes was not capped at 10k and at the same time, 5k didn't "give" me enough traffic to meet RelayBandwidthRate. ~ Stian

1 0

IPv6 for the nifty?
by nusenu 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

Hi Markus, since you are by far the biggest exit relay operator I was wondering if you have any plans to get IPv6 connectivity? thanks, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

3 3

Tor Relay Setup
by Gabe D. 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

Hey Guys, Ive an issue... I wanted to aid the network and setup a tor exit node, however its failing to do so, everything looks perfect config wise and it says "publishing server descriptor" no errors but the node never shows up in tor atlas, is there something i may be doing wrong? This is my config: ORPort 9001 ExitRelay 1 Nickname ** ContactInfo ** DirPort 80 DisableDebuggerAttachment 0 ControlPort 9051 CookieAuthentication 1

6 9

Relay failed logins
by Olaf Grimm 25 Feb '18

25 Feb '18

Dear guys, I am now on my server with SSH and get the message during login: ... Last failed login: Sat Feb 24 14:22:47 EST 2018 from 5.188.10.179 on ssh:notty There were 1343 failed login attempts since the last successful login. ... This simple relay (no exit) is online since less days. Location Moldavia / Trabia Network; VPS Is this amount of attacks regular? In the past i had a log file of 12MB on an other server - all failed logins. It is not a problem. It is only for my feeling "Ok, That's right!". Nickname node49c Olaf

6 5