- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

>30% of the Tor network runs outdated version: Consider enabling auto-updates
by nusenu 27 Jan '18

27 Jan '18

Hi, when writing the content for the Tor Relay Guide we also collected steps to enable auto updates for various Linux distributions. The motivation for this is that there are a lot of relays (>3000) running outdated tor releases. If more operators enable auto-updates the number of outdated tor relays hopefully decreases. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide#AutomaticSoftwa… Debian: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide/DebianUbuntuUpd… RPM Distros: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide/RPMUpdates thanks, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

7 11

debugging unbound on 'torexit' failing DNS queries
by nusenu 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

<tor-admin(a)portaltodark.world> wrote: > Resent under the correct alias. > > I'm having high amounts of failures on this VPS (PulseServers). I run a > local unbound instance, and see an incredible amount of: > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: sendto failed: Operation > not permitted > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: remote address is > 198.97.190.53 port 53 > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: sendto failed: Operation > not permitted > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: remote address is > 192.42.93.30 port 53 > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: sendto failed: Operation > not permitted > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: remote address is > 192.35.51.30 port 53 > Jan 17 19:27:33 torexit unbound: [559:0] notice: sendto failed: Operation > not permitted > > To give proportion to "incredible amount", > Jan 17 19:21:32 torexit rsyslogd: imjournal: 9897 messages lost due to > rate-limiting > Jan 17 19:22:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 1216 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:22:32 torexit journal: Suppressed 1209 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:23:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 1827 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:23:32 torexit journal: Suppressed 2333 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:24:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 3029 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:24:32 torexit journal: Suppressed 2822 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:25:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 2715 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:25:32 torexit journal: Suppressed 3166 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:26:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 4093 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:26:32 torexit journal: Suppressed 45878 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:27:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 30125 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:27:32 torexit journal: Suppressed 31764 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > Jan 17 19:28:02 torexit journal: Suppressed 31229 messages from > /system.slice/unbound.service > > Could it be limits from the VPS provider on the amount of outbound udp/53 > connections? To me this looks more like a local problem? Are you doing any packet filtering on the host (outbound)? Does DNS work on that host if you try manual queries? From the IPs in your logs I assume your unbound is configured to query recursively itself (no upstream forwarding) that is good, can you confirm that and provide your unbound config + iptalbes -vnL? -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

4 13

Re: [tor-relays] A lot of Warn messages when bootstrapping
by Dark Matter 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

Thanks for the fast reply! > Your relay has probably chosen some overloaded guards. > The problem comes from the extra load on those machines, not your relay. > Your relay will eventually try other guards. > > Are you sure it's not overloaded? > It might be worth checking the logs, inbound connections, RAM, and CPU > after it has been running for a few days. Yes, the relay is working fine - the only problem was the connection limit due to some OS-level limits.which is why I had to restart the relay in the first place. > Ignore the warning messages unless your relay is having problems. Ok, I'll do :) Once one successful circuit was established, there were no warnings any more. It just took some time - but I cannot tell if the relay switched guards or if the guard nodes finally managed to accept a connection request, since I didn't check the guard node set prior to restarting. Regards, Dark

1 0

No graph update for my relay in ATLAS
by Peter Ott 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

Hi, it seems that the graph in ATLAS (1 month and 3 months) for my relay isn't updated any longer for the graph 'read.' and 'written bytes per second' (last info was of 2018-01-01). The graph for 'consensus weight', 'middle probability' etc. seems to be ok. During startup of TOR (running it on Windows 10 / x64) the DirPort and the ORPort is reachable. Any idea? Btw how long must the relay be 'up' to get the 'stable' or 'guard' flag granted. My relay is now online for 46 days -only restarted for a TOR release upgrade-. A change of the IP-adress seems to be handled fine by TOR. This change by the ISP occurs at least every 3 days or so). Thanks in advance and best regards Peter Relay TRUMPER FP: 12DFC9D1852979939D9317F57A857C80BC73165E

4 6

Advertised Bandwidth
by MarkIt8Dude 25 Jan '18

25 Jan '18

Hi all, I’d like to understand something about Advertised Bandwidth. I set up my Tor Relay 3 months ago. With the following settings : RelayBandwidthRate 1250 KBytes RelayBandwidthBurst 1450 KBytes But i only get and Advertised Bandwidth of 83.79 KiB/s. Very far from my settings. And also it makes me think that my relay is completely useless …☹ Any suggestions ? Thx,

3 2

Upgraded relay non show in ATLAS
by MLTor Node 25 Jan '18

25 Jan '18

Hi to all! i have a little relay running in my home LAN on Windows 2016 server (MLTorNode, FE4033D750831C32A957174ADD11E40F558A14A9). A few days ago, i create two VLan on my home network, one dedicated for my Tor relay. Today i updated service to 3.2.9 release. After starting tor service, log say that Orport and DIRport are reachable from outside, so it seems to be working without problems. But if i query Atlas, my node seems to be down from 5 days. The IP showed in Atlas is old (i have dynamic IP and dynamic DNS). I stop and start several times service with no luck. Anyone can help me? My node is small, but i like very much Tor and i want to continue contributing to the project. -- Marlenio (MLTorNode) FE4033D750831C32A957174ADD11E40F558A14A9

2 3

Middle relays stopping because of "SYN flood"?
by Christian Krbusek 25 Jan '18

25 Jan '18

Dear list, recently I´m facing issues with my 4 middle relays: B1E889E8EA604D81326F5071E0ABF1B2B16D5DAB FC9AC8EA0160D88BCCFDE066940D7DD9FA45495B BDB9EBCB1C2A424973A240C91EEC082C3EB61626 ACD889D86E02EDDAB1AFD81F598C0936238DC6D0 All of them running v0.3.2.9 on Debian stretch (kvm, 2 cores, 2GB RAM) and stopping with the log entries below. I can´t remember when this started but I´m quite sure it did not happen a few month ago. There have not been any recent changes on the hardwarenode or on the VMs. All of them running the "same" configuration created by ansible-relayor - one example below. The VMs are running at the time the relays go offline and even a network restart doesn´t fix the issue so I have to restart the VM to get the relays up and running again. Any hints would be much appreciated, if any more infos are needed just ask. Cheers, Christian >>>>> CONFIG START <<<<< # ansible-relayor generated torrc configuration file # Note: manual changes will be OVERWRITTEN on the next ansible-playbook run OfflineMasterKey 1 RunAsDaemon 0 Log notice syslog OutboundBindAddress 188.118.198.244 SocksPort 0 User _tor-188.118.198.244_443 DataDirectory /var/lib/tor-instances/188.118.198.244_443 ORPort 188.118.198.244:443 DirPort 188.118.198.244:80 SyslogIdentityTag 188.118.198.244_443 ControlSocket /var/lib/tor-instances/188.118.198.244_443/controlsocket Nickname ph3x Sandbox 1 ExitRelay 0 ExitPolicy reject *:* ContactInfo 4096R/0x73538126032AD297 Christian Krbusek <abuse AT ph3x DOT at> - 1NtneNxb8awwH8woJ7oL7UVj1SJDpAn8Kc RelayBandwidthRate 15 MB RelayBandwidthBurst 30 MB NumCPUs 2 MyFamily acd889d86e02eddab1afd81f598c0936238dc6d0,b1e889e8ea604d81326f5071e0abf1b2b16d5dab,bdb9ebcb1c2a424973a240c91eec082c3eb61626,fc9ac8ea0160d88bccfde066940d7dd9fa45495b # end of torrc >>>>> CONFIG END <<<<< >>>>> LOGS START <<<<< at-vie01a-tor01.ph3x.at: Jan 25 17:58:24 at-vie01a-tor01 Tor-86.59.119.83_443[540]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 8629 v4 connections; and receiv ed 60 v1 connections, 4568 v2 connections, 9249 v3 connections, and 403685 v4 connections. Jan 25 18:00:17 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64938.876706] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.773119] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.774838] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786154] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786189] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786235] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786250] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786315] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786333] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786391] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:06 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64987.786411] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:15 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64997.053055] net_ratelimit: 2 callbacks suppressed Jan 25 18:01:15 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64997.053056] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:16 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64998.301030] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:16 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64998.365099] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:17 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64998.557033] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:18 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [64999.805082] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:27 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.277179] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.533307] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.533678] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.533697] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.533820] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.534615] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.535200] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.535460] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.535708] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:28 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65009.536685] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.677629] net_ratelimit: 11 callbacks suppressed Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.677661] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.677910] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.677989] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.680478] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.680857] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.682767] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.682832] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.682953] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.683033] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:01:34 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65015.683041] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:02:13 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65054.590190] net_ratelimit: 6 callbacks suppressed Jan 25 18:02:13 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65054.590194] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:02:13 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65054.597927] TCP: too many orphaned sockets Jan 25 18:05:15 at-vie01a-tor01 kernel: [65237.086196] TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 443. Sending cookies. Check SNMP counters. Jan 25 18:17:01 at-vie01a-tor01 CRON[24416]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 18:57:09 at-vie01a-tor01 systemd[1]: Stopped target Timers. at-vie01a-tor02.ph3x.at: Jan 25 10:17:01 at-vie01a-tor02 CRON[19123]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 11:17:01 at-vie01a-tor02 CRON[23992]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 11:59:10 at-vie01a-tor02 Tor-86.59.119.88_443[509]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 11:59 hours, with 38342 circuits open. I've sent 218.94 GB and received 192.87 GB. Jan 25 11:59:10 at-vie01a-tor02 Tor-86.59.119.88_443[509]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 88566/90206 TAP, 12299213/12353484 NTor. Jan 25 11:59:10 at-vie01a-tor02 Tor-86.59.119.88_443[509]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 6295 v4 connections; and receiv ed 60 v1 connections, 3085 v2 connections, 6040 v3 connections, and 300693 v4 connections. Jan 25 12:17:01 at-vie01a-tor02 CRON[28856]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 12:18:28 at-vie01a-tor02 kernel: [44384.957658] TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 443. Sending cookies. Check SNMP counters. Jan 25 13:17:01 at-vie01a-tor02 CRON[28998]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 14:17:01 at-vie01a-tor02 CRON[29061]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 14:36:57 at-vie01a-tor02 ntpd[490]: Soliciting pool server 185.144.161.170 Jan 25 14:37:05 at-vie01a-tor02 ntpd[490]: Soliciting pool server 2a02:1748:0:1500:3::2005 Jan 25 14:37:16 at-vie01a-tor02 ntpd[490]: error resolving pool 1.debian.pool.ntp.org: Temporary failure in name resolution (-3) Jan 25 14:37:36 at-vie01a-tor02 ntpd[490]: error resolving pool 0.debian.pool.ntp.org: Temporary failure in name resolution (-3) at-vie01a-tor03.ph3x.at: Jan 24 13:21:18 at-vie01a-tor03 systemd[1]: apt-daily.timer: Adding 9h 35min 45.841113s random time. Jan 24 13:24:24 at-vie01a-tor03 kernel: [62694.054136] TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 443. Sending cookies. Check SNMP counters. Jan 24 13:59:57 at-vie01a-tor03 Tor-78.142.140.242_443[517]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 17:59 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 314.59 GB and received 317.28 GB. Jan 24 13:59:57 at-vie01a-tor03 Tor-78.142.140.242_443[517]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 35924/36525 TAP, 10006455/10027375 NTor. Jan 24 13:59:57 at-vie01a-tor03 Tor-78.142.140.242_443[517]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 11906 v4 connections; and received 47 v1 connections, 4092 v2 connections, 8578 v3 connections, and 409960 v4 connections. Jan 24 14:17:01 at-vie01a-tor03 CRON[21604]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 24 15:17:01 at-vie01a-tor03 CRON[21670]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 24 15:41:25 at-vie01a-tor03 ntpd[492]: error resolving pool 1.debian.pool.ntp.org: Temporary failure in name resolution (-3) at-vie01a-tor04.ph3x.at: Jan 25 12:00:52 at-vie01a-tor04 Tor-188.118.198.244_443[510]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 11:59 hours, with 36596 circuits open. I've sent 192.29 GB and received 194.32 GB. Jan 25 12:00:52 at-vie01a-tor04 Tor-188.118.198.244_443[510]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 84713/86100 TAP, 11892935/11941101 NTor. Jan 25 12:00:52 at-vie01a-tor04 Tor-188.118.198.244_443[510]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 5938 v4 connections; and rec eived 44 v1 connections, 2949 v2 connections, 5395 v3 connections, and 287856 v4 connections. Jan 25 12:17:01 at-vie01a-tor04 CRON[29820]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 12:29:17 at-vie01a-tor04 kernel: [44936.694001] hrtimer: interrupt took 12598111 ns Jan 25 13:17:01 at-vie01a-tor04 CRON[2275]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 14:17:01 at-vie01a-tor04 CRON[7180]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 14:27:14 at-vie01a-tor04 kernel: [52013.316026] TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 443. Sending cookies. Check SNMP counters. Jan 25 15:17:01 at-vie01a-tor04 CRON[7920]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 16:17:01 at-vie01a-tor04 CRON[8023]: (root) CMD ( cd / && run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly) Jan 25 16:42:38 at-vie01a-tor04 ntpd[492]: Soliciting pool server 81.16.38.161 Jan 25 16:42:46 at-vie01a-tor04 ntpd[492]: error resolving pool 3.debian.pool.ntp.org: Temporary failure in name resolution (-3) >>>>> LOGS END <<<<<

3 4

Tor 0.3.0.x end-of-life date in one week (2018-02-01)
by nusenu 25 Jan '18

25 Jan '18

This is a quick reminder that in one week, Tor 0.3.0.x will reach its end of life date (2018-02-01). >300 relays are still running that major version. https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetStats/#major-versions list of affected relays: https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/version:0.3.0.%20running:true https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTor… Consider enabling auto-updates to keep your relays safe https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide#AutomaticSoftwa… -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

1 0

nyx no connections shown
by TorGate 23 Jan '18

23 Jan '18

Hi, i have 2 new relais running and have also installed nyx. When i go to the page 2 in nyx is there no connection. But my network show me over 4000 tor connections . What is the issue with nyx on my torservers ? TorGate torgate(at)linux-hus.dk

5 16

kelihos infection
by scar 22 Jan '18

22 Jan '18

Hello fellow relay operators, I have received word from my ISP that they detected malicious traffic from my account. I'm running the exit node "cave" with reduced exit policy, https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/3875c9c843d33762fa733bcaf128f26a10bc7… The information received from my ISP was: infection => 'kelihos', subtype => 'kelihos.e', port => '52935', asn => '209', family => 'kelihos', sourceSummary => 'Drone Report' Typically they will also provide an IP address related to the infection, which is usually a sinkhole. The solution is to block the IP in my exit policy. However no IP was provided in this report and there is not one available, since my ISP is just relaying information they receive from a 3rd party detection agency. Furthermore, the port mentioned, 52935, is not allowed in my exit policy, so I'm guessing that port is somewhere else... Any ideas about this "infection" and how we could prevent it from using our exit nodes? Thanks

2 1

Become a Fallback Directory Mirror
by teor 22 Jan '18

22 Jan '18

Dear Relay Operators, Do you want your relay to be a Tor fallback directory mirror? Will it have the same address and port for the next 2 years? Just reply to this email with your relay's fingerprint. If your relay is on the current list, you don't need to do anything. If you're asking: Q: What's a fallback directory mirror? Fallback directory mirrors help Tor clients connect to the network. For more details, see [1]. Q: Is my relay on the current list? Search [2] and [3] for your relay fingerprint or IP address and port. [2] is the current list of fallbacks in Tor. [3] is used to create the next list of fallbacks. Q: What do I need to do if my relay is on the list? Keep the same IP address, keys, and ports. Email tor-relays if the relay's details change. Q: Can my relay be on the list next time? We need fast relays that will be on the same IP address and port for 2 years. Reply to this email to get on the list, or to update the details of your relay. Once or twice a year, we run a script to choose about 150-200 relays from the potential list [3] for the list in Tor [2]. Q: Why didn't my relay get on the list last time? We check a relay's uptime, flags, and speed [4]. Sometimes, a relay might be down when we check. That's ok, we will check it again next time. It's good to have some new relays on the list every release. That helps tor clients, because blocking a changing list is harder. Q: What about the current relay DDoS? We don't think the DDoS will have much impact on the fallback list. If your relay is affected, please: * make sure it has enough available file descriptors, and * set MaxMemInQueues to the amount of RAM you have available per tor instance (or maybe a few hundred MB less). We're also working on some code changes. See [5] for more details. [1]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/FallbackDirectoryMirrors [2]: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/or/fallback_dirs.inc [3]: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/scripts/maint/fallback.whitelist [4]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/attachment/ticket/21564/fallbacks_… [5]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2017-December/013881.html -- Tim / teor PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n ------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 26

connlimit: better to use "DROP" or "REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset"?
by tor 22 Jan '18

22 Jan '18

For relay operators using iptables connlimit to mitigate DoS attacks (or increased load from new clients), is it better for the Tor network to use "DROP" rules, or should we use something like "REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset"?

4 11

hidden service performance
by Igor Mitrofanov 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

I'd like to call out the apparent hidden service performance slowdown: https://metrics.torproject.org/torperf.html?start=2017-04-23&end=2018-01-21… I hope the dev team is looking into it. Thanks, Igor

3 2

updateFallbackDirs.py issues
by Toralf Förster 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

I do wonder why $> scripts/maint/updateFallbackDirs.py check_existing tells $> WARNING::1AF72E8906E6C49481A791A6F8F84F8DFEBBB2BA not a candidate: changed address/port recently (2017-10-22 07:00:00) But 1AF72E8906E6C49481A791A6F8F84F8DFEBBB2BA didn't changed it address/port since end of 2016. What I did is to establish a 2nd Tor relay at the same hardware at 2 different ports in automn last year: D11D11877769B9E617537B4B46BFB92B443DE33D (to verify if the combined bandwidth/weight of both would be equal to the one of the former single relay at the same IP). And I played a little bit with its configuration values. What comes in addition into my mind is that at every reboot I do run first "certbot" to check for a renewed LetsEncrypt certificate. And shortly (1 or 2 minutes) after it finished both Tor instances are started. -- Toralf PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E

2 6

Onionoo bandwidth recording stopped?
by Ralph Wetzel 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

3 5

Question about downtime
by Conrad Rockenhaus 21 Jan '18

21 Jan '18

Hello, Note - to others that have sent me emails about a proposed project, I will respond, I’m sorry I just got caught up in a huge emergency project. Anyway, I had a quick question, on the relay side I run ConradsOVHRelay01 (Relay) and ConradsOVHRelay02 (Exit). They’re running on CentOS, so I have to manually install the latest version of tor to keep up with the security updates. I am considering migrating to Ubuntu or Debian to make the update process simpler. To avoid downtime, would it be better to spin up two more boxes and migrate or would bringing them down for maintenance be acceptable? I would like to avoid downtime personally, as they’re stable, fast relays. I’m just looking for thoughts and ideas. Thanks, Conrad

3 2

Increased cpu usage
by r1610091651 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Hi AFter upgrade from 3.1.9 to 3.2.9, I've noticed that the cpu usage doubled for same throughput / conditions. Is anyone else seeing that too? Regards

6 5

Re: [tor-relays] Good vsp providers
by Tyler Johnson 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Are the advertised bandwidths from online.net what you will see in actual practice? For instance, if one of their LTS servers comes with 300Mbps, will you get close to that throughput? I have a few servers with oneprovider.com (online.net reseller I believe) and it's about 1/10 what is advertised, which is still good, considering the cost, but I'd like to run higher bandwidth relays. Also, does anyone know if the KVM offered through online.net have virtual media capabilities? Thanks, Tyler On Jan 19, 2018 03:16, "niftybunny" <abuse(a)to-surf-and-protect.net> wrote: Okay, you are from the US. Tor is legal in the US and legal in EU. You should be fine. I would not recommend running a Tor Exit if you are from Russia, UAE or Turkey. I used to have 20 Exists with Online.net and I got lots of abuse but they were fine after verifying me. And by the way, you dont have much choice with traffic flat and Tor exit friendly anyway. Markus On 19. Jan 2018, at 01:20, Fabian A. Santiago <fsantiago(a)garbage-juice.com> wrote: On January 18, 2018 6:26:40 PM EST, Mirimir <mirimir(a)riseup.net> wrote: On 01/18/2018 11:54 AM, niftybunny wrote: You will held responsible to your actions (traffic). So worst case scenario is: They give your personal data to a LEA and you are now in charge to explain to a LEO that this is a Tor Exit. Depends on your country if this is a good idea. If you dont want any personal data with your VPS, get a bulletproof VPS but even offshore ISPs ban Tor Exists together with CP and hate speech. Welcome to the wonderful world of Tor Exists. Enjoy your stay. Markus How about HostSailor? They accept Bitcoin, and don't authenticate customers. But I don't know how they'd handle Tor relays. On 18. Jan 2018, at 23:45, Fabian A. Santiago <fsantiago(a)garbage-juice.com> wrote: January 18, 2018 4:50 PM, "George" <george(a)queair.net> wrote: niftybunny: online.net <http://online.net> trabia.com <http://trabia.com> (ask first) both offer 100mbit for less than 5 euros This is a CSV file that TDP is slowly tinkering with. While it's focused on BSD-providing VPSs, most offer more. https://github.com/torbsd/torbsd.github.io/blob/master/docs/bsd-vps.md g -- 34A6 0A1F F8EF B465 866F F0C5 5D92 1FD1 ECF6 1682 _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays I asked online.net about their cloud ssd vps service and tor and have the following dialog going: " Hello. I'm interested in running a Tor relay exit node on your cloud SSD vps product. Is this allowed? I would be running a reduced reduced exit policy. Thank you. **************************************** Flavio Pastore 1/18/18 5:13 PM Hello, Thanks for your ticket. Our platform is a IaaS one. So, if you're willing to set up legal activities, you're more than welcome regardless of the service used. If not, you will reported accordingly. I hope I have this point clear, but we remain here at your entire disposal for any further information. Best regards, Flavio Online / Scaleway Looking for an amazing job? Join us NOW ! https://careers.scaleway.com/ **************************** Fabian.santiago(a)gmail.com 1/18/18 5:40 PM By legal services, do you mean a mechanism in order to respond to abuse reports? if so, i have covered that need by the following: 1.> i publish a tor readme html page on the server for anyone to browse to learn about tor and what my server is doing. it also includes links to the tor project's own pages with additional information. I would also be published in the tor atlas showing my node's information for all to see that i am a tor node. 2.> i publish contact information so that complaint concerns can be addressed to me directly as needed. will this suffice in your opinion? could you also make a note on your end that I would be running an exit relay so that you know, in case you do wind up receiving complaints about my node's traffic? I find (and have read) that with a reduced reduced exit policy the chance for complaint generating traffic is greatly minimized anyway. thank you. " so they seem to be kewl with it but in your opinions, what does he mean by "legal activities"? Thanks. -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays Uggh, monthly recurring Bitcoin payments sounds painful. Nah. Maybe not a good idea then with online.net. they seem to offer vps' in Paris and Amsterdam and I have no idea what their LE would do when handed my info. So forget it. Ok, any decently priced unmetered providers with servers in the US? I am in the US. I'll check out the csv someone mentioned as well. Thanks. They also just added this response: " Flavio Pastore wrote: Hello, Thanks for providing us more information about what services you're going to use in your server. By the way, it is very difficult to give you an exhaustive reply in advance, there is not a full text explaining what can be considered as illegal and what legal instead. But we ensure to apply the EU law as general set of rules, and the French law as specific set of rules. Besides, it is impossible to give you all details about that unfortunately. Finally , regarding the exit policy, it depends on the abuse and our security team treats case by case according to the specific abuse committed. Best regards, " Thanks again everyone. -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC _______________________________________________ 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

3 4

Good vsp providers
by Fabian A. Santiago 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Does anyone here use a vsp hosting provider which offers unlimited bandwidth usage at a reasonable cost monthly? Would need to run / offer Ubuntu. Country is of little importance. Thanks. -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC

6 20

Re: [tor-relays] [OrNetRadar] AS: "DigitalOcean, LLC" - 2018-01-16
by nusenu 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

I propose to reject these new DigitalOcean relays (no contact/MyFamily) +---------------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+---------+----------+----------+---------+ | first_seen | fingerprint | tor_version | or_port | dir_port | nickname | contact | +---------------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+---------+----------+----------+---------+ | 2018-01-16 01:00:00 | FD94F9A1FB940786691A7B8A266DCA50C6AE28F1 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 02:00:00 | 314E00247E8A661F3FB583275AD3F7B5466EFC99 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 03:00:00 | 0DDD78A986EDECA1E6FD36F8C4ACEFBCB95A90D7 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 03:00:00 | 3137D94063BA0F5D92BAD71EC4F452CA875D81D3 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 03:00:00 | AF1D8F02C0949E9755C0DF9C6761FBBF7AAB62C2 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 04:00:00 | 5C0C3F106C81BDA139DB1B5CD11E3E8E00C2ECF5 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 04:00:00 | B901626F9F7CD538B8B7812223F6614B1CFBDD78 | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | | 2018-01-16 04:00:00 | 26F2EE549E1BAE4979E15A432DBB63FC5148B31C | 0.2.9.11 | 443 | 80 | Unnamed | NULL | +---------------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+---------+----------+----------+---------+ ornetradar(a)riseup.net: > 2018-01-16 > > | Up | Ext | JoinTime | IP | CC | ORp | Dirp | Version | Contact | Nickname | eFamMembers | > |------+-------+------------+----------------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------| > | 1 | 0 | 00:16:46 | 138.197.99.49 | us | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 01:09:43 | 165.227.25.219 | us | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 02:07:50 | 178.62.240.100 | nl | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 02:11:33 | 159.89.192.117 | sg | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 02:15:04 | 178.62.33.87 | gb | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 02:53:44 | 139.59.135.196 | de | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 02:56:53 | 165.227.38.141 | ca | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 03:00:57 | 139.59.89.46 | in | 443 | 80 | 0.2.9.11 | None | Unnamed | 1 | > > https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetRadar/2018/01/16/a2 -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

5 9

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.2.9 Linux - too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests
by rush23＠gmx.net 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

1 0

Tor 0.3.2.9 Linux - first period fine, since today lots of: Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests!
by Stijn Jonker 18 Jan '18

18 Jan '18

Hi All, Is this a "known" issue, my non-exit relay has been running for over a year, and although with the recent issues (attack / network issue or the likes) with some ipfilter kunfu it managed to get through the storm pretty well. Now all of a sudden since early today my logs are flooded with: Jan 18 11:34:44 tornode Tor[65839]: 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. [204844 similar message(s) suppressed in last 60 seconds] First message is at Jan 18 07:17:13, last just Jan 18 11:37:44, when adding the # of circuits up, total in ~4 hours: 18033820 being 18 Million, which feels a bit much, but don't have any figures to compare. On the current hardware this never seemed to be an issue, not even by far it was normally (according to ESXi) at ~400-500mhz, now it's using 2 vCPU's at ~4000Mhz. Now of course I can lower the bandwidth, but if these are low bandwidth circuits then lowering the bandwidth from 10Mbyte/sec (peak 12,5Mbyte/sec) to a lower value might actually not resolve it. Anybody seeing this as well and/or ideas / advice etc? Stijn

4 3

The Onion Box v4.1
by Ralph Wetzel 18 Jan '18

18 Jan '18

5 8

tor 0.3.2.9 reached deb.torproject.org and FreeBSD repos
by nusenu 17 Jan '18

17 Jan '18

Since this has been a common question in the last few days.. -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Assigning BadExit to Exits failing to resolve hostnames starting on 2018-01-15
by nusenu 17 Jan '18

17 Jan '18

> Hello, > > Arthur and I have been emailing affected exit operators for a while > now and many operators fixed their exits but some minor number or exits > remain broken (even some that are running good tor versions). > > I believe it is reasonable to assign the BadExit flag to exits failing 100% > of DNS resolution attempts and have a CW > 200 (or any other value you like, > I just would not bother about exits with a CW of 20) starting with 2018-01-15, > if we did send them an email about the problem (if they have a contactInfo set). > > https://arthuredelstein.net/exits/ These are 4 exits failing 100% of DNS resolution attempts based on Arthur's scan data from 2018-01-16 05:10:00 UTC +------------------------------------------+-------------+-------+----------------------------------------------------+ | fingerprint | tor_version | CW | contact | +------------------------------------------+-------------+-------+----------------------------------------------------+ | 6F6586F1631CAC1115B9561656E7664D386B7F4B | 0.3.1.9 | 404 | Ins0mnia Shells <orwell1984.info AT gmail dot com> | | 34D3AF8DC4CF68BDEA354D21C24EFB2EAFD7191F | 0.3.1.7 | 2040 | tor(a)krosnov.org | | 92E3764D5485DC4AC01178271FB5A8A2D90DA9FF | 0.3.1.9 | 16700 | Random Person <tor-admin(a)portaltodark.world> | | 60A7451D512B647C0D05A2063CA7F329311347B5 | 0.2.5.16 | 21200 | NULL | +------------------------------------------+-------------+-------+----------------------------------------------------+ -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_

1 0