- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

IPv6 Issue with Relay
by Conrad Rockenhaus 22 Dec '17

22 Dec '17

Hello, One of the relays that I brought online yesterday, ConradsAWSExit (Hash 1B47E33F9D422CC97BD2DDA1F082BFF2FC58E79A) is showing up on Atlas that the IPv6 OR is unreachable. The other relay is working just fine with IPv6. I’ve confirmed that the following entries are in torrc: ORPort 9001 ORPort [2600:1f14:ede:d601:e107:1a4b:ba3:803]:9001 IPv6Exit 1 Just to confirm, here’s the output from ifconfig, that is the IP: inet6 2600:1f14:ede:d601:e107:1a4b:ba3:803 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global> I have confirmed that all of the applicable Security Group rules are configured correctly: Custom TCP Rule TCP 9001 0.0.0.0/0 ORPort Custom TCP Rule TCP 9001 ::/0 ORPort Custom TCP Rule TCP 9030 0.0.0.0/0 DIRPort Custom TCP Rule TCP 9030 ::/0 DIRPort Plus, I have confirmed with a telnet -6 to port 9001 from both my house and my servers at OVH in Canada that I’m able to connect to port 9001 via the IPv6 address on this node. So, my question is…what could I be missing here that is causing atlas to say that IPv6 is unreachable? I’ve been looking into this through the day and would like to kind of close it out, got a bunch of emails to catch up on hehe :D, so any input would be appreciated. Thanks, Conrad

3 5

Ongoing DDoS on the Network - Status
by David Goulet 21 Dec '17

21 Dec '17

Hi everyone! I'm David and I'm part of the core development team in Tor. A few minutes ago I just sent this to the tor-project@ mailing list about the DDoS the network is currently under: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2017-December/001604.html There is not much more to say about this right now but I wanted to thanks everyone here for running a relay, this situation is not pleasant for anyone especially for relay operators for which you need to deal with this attack (and extra bonus point during the holidays for some...). Second, everyone who provided information, took the time to dig in this problem and sent their findings on this list was a HUGE help to us so again, thank you very much for this. We will update everyone as soon as possible on the status of the tor releases that hopefully will contain fixes that should help mitigate this DDoS. Cheers! David -- aFJe0kbRB1zZXgwFQIvBG0Skn3xAsDGxVQsAiguKjY8=

2 3

restarting tor service after AccountingMax has been reached
by Fabian A. Santiago 21 Dec '17

21 Dec '17

I'm noticing that if i attempt to restart tor AFTER AccountingMax has been reached (meaning it's currently hibernating), tor itself fails to start. if i increase AccountingMax in torrc, then it restarts just fine. normal? -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC

3 8

Guard node suddenly sending twice what it receives
by Logforme 20 Dec '17

20 Dec '17

My little guard node (855BC2DABE24C861CD887DB9B2E950424B49FC34) have suddenly started to behave strangely. iftop (my "bandwidth monitor"), shows twice as much sent traffic as received traffic. The traffic seems to be distributed to a lot of ip addresses. No ip address stands out as receiving very much traffic: https://imgur.com/a/dAUzc Given the last few days of DDoS attacks (my node is still targeted by those) I naturally assume this is another attack. First it is lots of connections (mitigated with connection limits) Then it is massive amounts of memory per circuit (MaxMemInQueues fixes that) And now this. Could this be a third attack vector or am I seeing something "normal" (though I often check my bandwidth and I've never seen this before). My node recently got the HSDir flag after the last crash. Could the network be starved for HSDir machines and this is what I'm seeing? Being a linux noob I don't know how to figure out exactly what kind of traffic this is. Suggestions gratefully accepted.

2 3

botnet? abusing/attacking guard nodes
by starlight.2017q4＠binnacle.cx 20 Dec '17

20 Dec '17

Guard relay here appears to have come under steadily increasing abuse over the last several months. Belive the two previous threads relate to the same issue: Failing because we have 4063 connections already // Number of file descriptors DoS attacks are real Several times a day a large burst of circuit extends are attempted resulting in log flooding with [Warning] assign_to_cpuworker failed. Ignoring. where the above indicates a circuit-launch failed due to a full circuit request queue. Presently the guard runs on an old system lacking AES-NI, and the operation is expansive rather than trivial. Originally thought the events were very brief, but after reducing MaxClientCircuitsPending from a larger value to the default it appears they last between five and ten minutes. The abuser also contrives to create huge circuit queues, which resulted in an OOM kill of the daemon a couple of days back. Lowered MaxMemInQueues to 1G, set vm.overcommit_memory=2 with vm.overcommit_ratio=X (X such that /proc/meminfo:CommitLimit is comfortably less than physical memory) and now instead of a dameon take-out see [Warning] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Removed 1060505952 bytes by killing 1 circuits; 19k circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non- linked directory connections. As you can see the one circuit was consuming all of MaxMemInQueues. And today this showed up in the middle of a "assign_to_cpuworker failed" blast: [Warning] Failing because we have Y connections already. . . Digging into the source, the message indicates ENOMEM/ENOBUFS was returned from an attempt to create a socket. Socket max on the system is much higher than Y so kernel memory exhaustion is the cause. Implication is a burst of client connections associated with the events, but haven't verified that. An old server was dusted off after a hardware fail and the machine is a bit underpowered, but certainly up to the load that corresponds with the connection speed and assigned consensus weight. AFAICT normal Tor clients experience acceptable performance. The less-than-blazing current hardware illuminates the abuse/attack incidents and inspired the writing of this post.

11 16

Image asset in Tor readme html
by Fabian A. Santiago 20 Dec '17

20 Dec '17

Can the Tor service not serve up a locally referenced PNG file in the readme HTML file used for dirportfrontpage? Mine keeps showing as a broken link. -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC

3 3

[OrNetRadar] Contact: "dalesolutions2016 at yahoo dot com" (6)
by nusenu 19 Dec '17

19 Dec '17

Hello dalesolutions2016, thank you for adding tor relays to the network! To ensure tor users do not use your relays in multiple positions in a tor circuit (which is not safe), please set the "MyFamily" value in your torrc files. You can find out more about that configuration here: https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en#MyFamily kind regards, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_ ornetradar(a)riseup.net: > 2017-12-18 > > | Up | Ext | JoinTime | IP | AS | CC | ORp | Dirp | OS | Version | Nickname | eFamMembers | > |------+-------+------------+----------------+---------------------------------+------+-------+--------+-------+-----------+---------------+---------------| > | 1 | 1 | 10:01:27 | 93.188.164.86 | Hostinger International Limited | us | 9001 | 0 | Linux | 0.2.5.16 | Quahog | 1 | > | 0 | 0 | 10:54:31 | 93.188.161.36 | Hostinger International Limited | us | 9001 | 0 | Linux | 0.2.5.16 | 1stAmmendment | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 12:14:36 | 93.188.161.36 | Hostinger International Limited | us | 9001 | 0 | Linux | 0.2.5.16 | 1stAmmendment | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 12:15:57 | 93.188.161.109 | Hostinger International Limited | us | 9001 | 0 | Linux | 0.2.5.16 | MisterPink | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 12:18:32 | 153.92.209.187 | Hostinger International Limited | gb | 9001 | 0 | Linux | 0.2.5.16 | NCC1701D | 1 | > | 1 | 0 | 12:20:15 | 156.67.220.154 | Hostinger International Limited | cy | 9001 | 0 | Linux | 0.2.5.16 | Montauk | 1 | > > https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetRadar/2017/12/18/a3 > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: <mailto:ornetradar-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net> > List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> >

1 0

DoS attacks are real
by tordoswitchhunter＠airmail.cc 19 Dec '17

19 Dec '17

This message might be a bit controversial as I am disclosing bunch of client IPs, but you should check incoming ORPort connections on your relay, compare those IPs with usual clients and judge for yourself. I do not believe those are real Tor clients. Those IPs have been collected today from my guard node. Most of them are from LeaseWeb and OVH. :torrelayfilter - [0:0] -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 9001 -m connlimit --connlimit-above 4 --connlimit-mask 32 --connlimit-saddr -j torrelayfilter -A torrelayfilter -s 198.7.59.194/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 199.115.112.79/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 207.244.70.120/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.178/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.191/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 207.244.110.200/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.177/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.179/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 85.10.193.240/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 162.210.192.70/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.188/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.180/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.185/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.187/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.190/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.104/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.106/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 149.202.66.206/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.186/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.184/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.192/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.193/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.103/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.107/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 54.36.51.189/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 51.15.161.135/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 213.227.137.6/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 212.83.3.154/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 5.79.72.231/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 212.32.226.237/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 51.15.162.120/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 5.79.77.152/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 213.227.137.7/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 95.211.95.10/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 95.211.95.18/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 212.32.226.236/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 95.211.95.14/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 5.79.72.66/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 5.79.77.151/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 213.227.137.8/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.86.87/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.106.246/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.86.90/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 212.32.226.235/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.86.89/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 213.227.137.5/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.104.231/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.106.245/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 213.227.137.10/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.86.88/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 213.227.137.9/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 212.32.226.234/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A torrelayfilter -s 37.48.105.240/32 -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset

2 1

git branch to run from?
by Andreas Krey 19 Dec '17

19 Dec '17

Hi everybody, what is the proper git branch to build and run a relay from? So far I was on release-0.2.9 and just switched to release-0.3.2, but it seems that on either what I pick up there isn't actually a recommended version. - Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds(a)*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800

2 1

How long to delist from atlas?
by Fabian A. Santiago 18 Dec '17

18 Dec '17

Hello, I stood up a second Tor relay on an isp who's tos I didn't read carefully and they booted me. That's fine, my mistake. I had a vps and they only allow Tor on dedicated hosts. So I stood it up again on another known good vps provider and gave it the same Nick as the prior attempt. Now both are listed in atlas, same Nick, but one being offline. Is this ok and how long until the offline one is removed from the atlas listing? Thanks. -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC

2 2

#34C3 Tor Assembly
by Artikel 5 e.V. 18 Dec '17

18 Dec '17

Hello, when I looked around in the wiki for this years Chaos Communication Congress in Leipzig (Germany) I found that there is not much happening around Tor. So I took the liberty to register a small assembly [1] for Tor involved people to meet, discuss, hack or just sit and relax. This assembly will be in the Hall for "Rights & Freedoms" [2], I am not yet sure where this Hall is, but you'll find it. ;-) If all works fine I should have a DECT phone during the congress (6677), you can also reach my on various channels, one being Twitter [4], I am on the board of Artikel 5 e.V. [3] a non profit running some small relays (and exits) and looking to run more exits. (Looking for hosters preferably in Germany / EU ;-) The idea was more or less "there is no Tor assembly, but I would like to have one", the solution was to register one. I will take care of the basic stuff that has to be organized, would be very happy to get support from anyone and also looking forward to any ideas and questions. This assembly is open to anyone who is interested in Tor or actively supporting it, it is not meant to be a "Artikel 5 e.V." assembly, I just used the organization to register the assembly [5]. Things that we need: - Some Tor related decoration, so if you have anything that we can use there just bring it along and set it up in our space. - If anyone wants to hand out Tor related information/sticker/flyer please feel free to do so, but check what is accepted at the congress. I hope to see some of you guys at the #34C3 in Leipzig. Regards utzer [1] https://events.ccc.de/congress/2017/wiki/index.php/Static:Assemblies [2] https://events.ccc.de/congress/2017/wiki/index.php/Cluster:Rights_%26_Freed… [3] https://www.artikel5ev.de/ [4] https://twitter.com/utzer (holds a bit more information) [5] https://events.ccc.de/congress/2017/wiki/index.php/Assembly:Tor

8 11

Failing: 4063 Connection error
by Kurt Besig 17 Dec '17

17 Dec '17

Where can I set the connection limit higher or is this a result of max bandwidth allowed? This relay was up for over a year with no issues, however since updating the Tor version it's been problematic at best. Thanks. Linux version 2.6.32-042stab125.5 (root(a)kbuild-rh6-x64.eng.sw.ru) (gcc version 4.4.6 20120305 (Red Hat 4.4.6-4) (GCC) ) #1 SMP Tue Oct 17 12:48:22 MSK 2017 Tor version 0.3.1.9 :Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance. [over 16000001 similar message(s) suppressed in last 21600 seconds]

2 1

Failing because we have 4063 connections already // Number of file descriptors
by Ralph Seichter 15 Dec '17

15 Dec '17

Since a couple of days ago, one of my relay nodes keeps logging messages like this: Tor[3534]: Failing because we have 4063 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance. [over 16000001 similar message(s) suppressed in last 21600 seconds] I found https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16929 and an older mailing list thread (and doc/TUNING) that suggest increasing the maximum number of open file descriptors. I now use # /etc/security/limits.conf * - nofile 65535 to raise 'nofile' from 1024 to 65535, which does not seem to make any difference (the logged error message does not change). My relay uses Gentoo Linux kernel version 4.14.5 and Tor 0.3.2.6 alpha. I also tried older versions of the kernel and Tor 0.3.1.9, in several combinations, without success. I also other relays running just fine with the default number of file descriptors (1024). As I mentioned, the problems started a few days ago, around the time I upgraded from Gentoo system profile default/linux/amd64/13.0 to default/linux/amd64/17.0, rebuilding many system packages in the process. Unfortunately I cannot tell what exactly changed. Since the profile upgrade was deliberate and I cannot roll back, I wonder if I can overcome Tor's problems via configuration options only? -Ralph

3 6

Is your IPv6 relay not Running?
by teor 15 Dec '17

15 Dec '17

Hi, Since October 2017, a majority of directory authorities check relay IPv6 ORPorts. If your relay is configured with an IPv6 ORPort: ORPort [IPv6]:Port and it is not reachable over IPv6, it will be excluded from the consensus. This can happen if the address is wrong, or the IPv6 routing is wrong. If your relay isn't in the consensus, it will log warnings. Or, you can check Relay Search at: https://atlas.torproject.org If your relay is not Running, you can check the votes for your relay here: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health.html If all the authorities don't vote for your relay, it has a tor or IPv4 problem. If a few do vote Running, it probably has an IPv6 problem. (If you want to be sure, check which authorities support ReachableIPv6 in the consensus health Known Flags table.) If you have an IPv6 problem, check the address, and check the routing. Here's what I do to check IPv6 on my relays when I set them up: From the relay: ping6 ipv6.google.com From another IPv6 machine: ping6 ipv6.google.com ping6 (the relay's IPv6 address) telnet (the relay's IPv6 ORPort) We're working on having better support for IPv6 across Relay Search and consensus health. T

4 8

exit relay
by Evangelos Meintasis 15 Dec '17

15 Dec '17

Hello to all, I got this warning : [warn] Tor is running as an exit relay. If you did not want this behavior, please set the ExitRelay option to 0. But in /etc/tor/torrc file, I can not locate an y EXITRELAY option. Should I just type it without comments there with the 0 flag? Thank you! Vagelis. Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland.

5 4

someone is livestreaming a bad exit
by tor 15 Dec '17

15 Dec '17

https://www.twitch.tv/sp00k13z https://twitter.com/notdan/status/941116413070270465

4 3

Alleged Family Members / Stable flag "issues"
by Stijn Jonker 15 Dec '17

15 Dec '17

Hi all, For a little short of a year I'm running Relay SJC01 (328E54981C6DDD7D89B89E418724A4A7881E3192), there was some unnoticed outage of the relay which caused a couple days of downtime. This was at the end of Nov, oddly enough I don't seem to get back the "Stable" flag. In searches I found some conflicting answers, it's either 7 days of uptime, a median of seven days of the entire uptime and/or the advice to check https://consensus-health.torproject.org/consensus-health-2017-12-14-18-00.h… What I don't understand is the differences in the output of the concensus: - The concensus nodes that don't have IPv6 (assumed from "KnownFlags" from top of page. (longclaw, dizum, moria1 and faravahar) list my relay with Stable/Guard. - The concensus nodes that do assign the "ReachableIPv6" flag, don't have my relay listed with those flags. To test the IPv6 function, I took an VM outside of my network and ran Tor with "UseBridges" only allowing via iptables IPv6 out to my relay as entry node, and it the relay is/was functioning on IPv6. Now happy to wait an other week/month etc for the stable flag. It doesn't add value to me, but I'm more curious why the flag doesn't return. The same with the Alleged Family Member, I had an relay / exit with a reduced exit policy ($F8333E028E952840C1B93DAEE20880F75B90A68A) but that has been gone for quite some weeks (months) as it was taken down by the hoster. Now all info I can find is that when the relay doesn't announce this anymore one can expect it to be gone after some days/weeks. But in this case it's not going away. If there are actions on my side happy to take them, but I can't find the "right thing" to do here. Thanks! -- Yours Sincerely / Met Vriendelijke groet, Stijn Jonker

3 5

Dir address none
by Fabian A. Santiago 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

I'm checking my Tor relay on atlas and the dir address is listed as 'none'. I have dirport set in my torrc file to just a number with no other flags. I can hit the HTML page in my browser. I did just stand up my relay less than 24 hours ago. Anything I'm missing? Thanks. -- Thanks, Fabian S. OpenPGP: 3C3FA072ACCB7AC5DB0F723455502B0EEB9070FC

2 5

Removed x bytes by killing y circuits
by Felix 14 Dec '17

14 Dec '17

Hi everybody Can someone explain the following tor log entry: Removed 528 bytes by killing 385780 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. (it's the nicest one, see below) Memory stays at 3 - 4 GB before and after. Only tor restart gets rid of the memory. We love to remove 528 bytes. Tor log becomes 370 MB within 18 hours. ---- Tor 0.3.2.6-alpha (git-87012d076ef58bb9) MaxMemInQueues 2 GB ---- We receive some of these: Dec 14 00:11:00.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 8 days 3:00 hours, with 508694 circuits open. Dec 14 00:30:08.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 00:30:09.000 [notice] Removed 13344 bytes by killing 594572 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 3 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 01:11:00.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 8 days 4:00 hours, with 67530 circuits open. Dec 14 02:07:16.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 02:07:17.000 [notice] Removed 206448 bytes by killing 484352 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 2 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 03:11:00.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 8 days 6:00 hours, with 379182 circuits open. Dec 14 03:13:17.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 03:13:17.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 385780 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 05:11:00.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 8 days 8:00 hours, with 303958 circuits open. Dec 14 05:15:17.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 05:15:18.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 317854 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. and lots of: Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 221 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 297 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 395 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 468 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Dec 14 00:30:22.000 [notice] Removed 528 bytes by killing 509 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. -- Thanks and cheers, Felix

2 2

Re: [tor-relays] Issues with faravahar?
by Sina Rabbani 12 Dec '17

12 Dec '17

Dear Tor Relay Operators, Faravahar had some hardware issues last night, while I was on an airplane without internet access. It took me a few hours to respond and I apologize for the delay. Please note that redundancy is built into the network, and I am committed to operating this system with very high availability. A maintenance window to replace the hardware will be announced soon, this system has been running since 2012 and it's time to upgrade. All the best, Sina "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi ----- On Dec 12, 2017, at 5:38 PM, teor teor2345(a)gmail.com wrote: > On 13 Dec 2017, at 08:17, tor <tor(a)anondroid.com> wrote: > >>> this time though I ran Wireshark while started tor, and it appears tor is >>> transmitting encrypted info over port 80. >> >>> Surely tor shouldn't be transmitting unencrypted messages? >> >> I'm not an expert on the protocol but you may just be looking at responses from >> the proxy in front of Faravahar? > > Tor's directory documents are public, and signed, and they only contain > public keys. So it's entirely safe to transmit them unencrypted. > > T > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

Issues with faravahar?
by r1610091651 12 Dec '17

12 Dec '17

Hi I'm seeing regular issues with faravahar in logs lately. Is somebody working on this? Logs: Dec 12 10:32:56.000 [warn] HTTP status 502 ("Bad Gateway") was unexpected while uploading descriptor to server '154.35.175.225:80'. Possibly the server is misconfigured? Dec 12 10:33:56.000 [warn] Received http status code 502 ("Bad Gateway") from server '154.35.175.225:80' while fetching "/tor/server/d/706E3C29265BD073DF77DC457A3CD8B1BC16C6E6+E223A1B036E3F7315DCADE32F6A4428F15148987.z". I'll try again soon. Thanks

8 8

DoS attacks on multiple relays
by null 12 Dec '17

12 Dec '17

Hi, We're experiencing what looks like a DoS attack on multiple relays in our family: https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/family:CBEAE10CBBB86C51059246B2EF92EB2… The relays are currently running Tor 0.3.1.9 on Linux kernel 4.4.0 (although when the problem started the relays were running Tor 0.3.1.8). The attack knocked 3 of 6 relays offline overnight. By the time we looked at logs, the Tor service had stopped and this was the last line in the log: "Tor[xyz]: Failing because we have 16351 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance." The attack is still ongoing. When it's happening, the number of connections rises very rapidly, until the attack succeeds in stopping the service. $ ss -s Total: 15855 (kernel 0) TCP: 24520 (estab 23969, closed 305, orphaned 31, synrecv 0, timewait 261/0), ports 0 Transport Total IP IPv6 * 0 - - RAW 0 0 0 UDP 8 4 4 TCP 24215 24213 2 INET 24223 24217 6 FRAG 0 0 0 ... and only a few seconds later: $ ss -s Total: 12120 (kernel 0) TCP: 27389 (estab 20026, closed 1906, orphaned 45, synrecv 0, timewait 1587/0), ports 0 Transport Total IP IPv6 * 0 - - RAW 0 0 0 UDP 8 4 4 TCP 25483 25481 2 INET 25491 25485 6 FRAG 0 0 0 That's obviously much larger than the normal number of connections, more than we've ever seen, and seems like more connections than would be needed for a relay. We have file descriptors (/proc/sys/fs/file-max) set to 64000, but it looks like Tor sets MAX_FILEDESCRIPTORS to 16384 per /etc/init.d/tor: elif [ "$system_max" -gt "40000" ] ; then MAX_FILEDESCRIPTORS=16384 Surely that is high enough for normal service? We haven't started looking into where the traffic is coming from or other characteristics. We are wondering if: 1) this is a known attack, 2) if other operators are experiencing it, 3) if there are any ideas for mitigating it, and 4) if any additional information would be helpful. Thanks.

7 11

Action relays on 188.214.30.0/24 subnet
by x9p 12 Dec '17

12 Dec '17

Shouldn't an action be taken against such relays? https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/188.214.30 They are clearly being run by the same entity/person, probably in an automated fashion, don't have family set, and are using the same datacenter. cheers. x9p

2 3

UbuntuCore stats update
by Chad MILLER 11 Dec '17

11 Dec '17

Hi all. I generate* the packages that make up those UbuntuCore relays and bridges you hear about some time in here. I intended it to be a low-friction way normal joes can help Tor. There have been a good number of volunteers. The automatic-update system of Snap means the security update of a few days ago gives some population info through download stats. About 2200+ machines updated to last week's release. Almost all are amd64, though a few percent are i386 or armhf. I don't know of any arm64 yet. They're mostly desktops and servers. I see several new downloads every day. Judging from the new Atlas, about 800 are have checked in to try to join the consensus, and a little more than 100 are active at any time. Some working details: The package has a kill-switch so that it no longer starts after a few months of staleness (if I'm ever hit by a bus). At first launch, Tor creates a key and the last two bits of the key determines the role of the instance, with a 1/4 chance of becoming a obfs4 bridge. The default bandwidth limit is a modest 4 megabits per second. Also by default, it tries to punch holes in NAT to make itself available for incoming connections, but I don't have a lot of confidence that is often successful. I remain on this list and am always happy to answer questions or suggestions. * http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~privacy-squad/+junk/tor-middle-relay-snap/files -- Chad Miller chad.org gpg:a806deac30420066

4 5

Weird issue caused downtime of my relay
by Aneesh Dogra 11 Dec '17

11 Dec '17

Hello Everyone, I run a tor exit relay named "rippedlion". I was out for vacation past few days and saw I had a 2 day downtime. I had a look at the logs and apparently /var/lib/tor got detected to be owned as <unknown>? How do I prevent this in future? Snippet from notices.log: Dec 08 06:54:57.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendevous (pending) Dec 08 06:56:25.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with purpose Acting as rendevous (pending) Dec 08 07:00:21.000 [warn] /var/lib/tor is not owned by this user (root, 0) but by <unknown> (112). Perhaps you are running Tor as the wrong user? Dec 08 07:00:21.000 [err] Can't create/check datadirectory /var/lib/tor Dec 08 07:00:21.000 [err] Unable to update Ed25519 keys! Exiting. PS: I am now running tor; as a low privledged user that only has access to /var/lib/tor and /var/log/tor. Thanks! -- Regardless, I hope you're well and happy - Aneesh

2 2