- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by null 11 Dec '17

11 Dec '17

@ x9p: > # netstat -tupan | grep ESTABLISHED | grep /tor | awk '{print $5}' | awk > -F: '{print $1}' | awk -F. '{print $1"."$2"."$3}' | sort | uniq -c | sort > | egrep -v ' 1 | 2 | 3 ' > > with this information in hand, double the max of it (mine was 10 > connections from 188.214.30.0/24): > > 10 188.214.30 > > iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m connlimit --connlimit-above 20 > --connlimit-mask 24 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset Thank you! This was extremely helpful. In our case we found a handful of IPs that had *thousands* of concurrent connections on several of our relays. The offending IPs were not in the consensus. After restarting the Tor service, these suspect connections come back rapidly, again across several of our relays. Since our relays are all in the same declared family, it is very difficult to see how this traffic is legitimate. If it's valid Tor clients, they are behaving very strangely, and in either case we need to limit their impact. As such we've implemented connlimits by /24 as suggested (with a much higher limit to err on the side of not rejecting valid traffic). We can already see that this has improved our situation. @ Scott Bennett: > What you are seeing is most likely the same phenomenon brought up on > this list repeatedly over at least the last decade or so. That phenomenon > is providing HSDir service, or perhaps a rendez-vous point, for a popular > hidden service. > If you don't like it, you can set > > HidServDirectoryV2 0 Thanks for your reply. The data suggests this was not the case (this time). Some of these relays have been up almost a year with the same configuration, often with the HSDir flag. The recent issues just started occurring, and happened across several relays during the same timeframe. Nonetheless, we're not opposed to disabling HidServDirectoryV2 to rule it out. However it appears that option is deprecated (on 0.3.1.9). Enabling it causes this in the log: [WARN] Skipping obsolete configuration option 'HidServDirectoryV2' It's also no longer listed in the Tor manual (https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en) It looks like we might be able to achieve the same effect with something like this instead: MinUptimeHidServDirectoryV2 52 weeks Anyone have any info on why HidServDirectoryV2 is consider obsolete? Is using MinUptimeHidServDirectoryV2 instead going to achieve the same effect? >> 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? > > If by normal you mean "low traffic", then yes, it's probably enough. > However, that's really not very high in a general sense. Why does the default /etc/init.d/tor (from the Debian/Ubuntu pkg) cap MAX_FILEDESCRIPTORS at 16384 then? We have it set to 64000 otherwise. Obviously we could comment out these lines, but it seems odd the default config tries to cap it at 16384 if that's too low for a high traffic relay. Thanks everyone for your replies!

5 15

ISP is aking me to send a selfie holding my identity card
by Tanous 10 Dec '17

10 Dec '17

Hi, Im running an exit relay for 116 days. Today i received an email from my ISP saying that my account has been locked for security reasons. They asked me to send a copy of my identity card and a selfie holding it. I found that very odd and i feel uncomfortable sending that data to them. Should i give up to running my exit relay and find another ISP? By the way, i had received an abuse complaint a day before, due to Brute force attempts. Best Regards, Tanous

11 26

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by teor 09 Dec '17

09 Dec '17

On 9 Dec 2017, at 13:24, x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: >> By "private guards" do you mean "bridges"? >> That would be a very bad idea: it would make the bridge and its onion >> services stand out within minutes or hours on the network, because >> each circuit gets a different middle node, and the nodes would not >> be evenly distributed. > > Sorry, I meant EntryNodes > >> If you block a guards on an onion service, it will look different, but >> that >> might be unnoticeable for a few months. (More precisely, it's safe in >> proportion the guard rotation period, divided by the number of related >> onion services blocking those guards, divided by the consensus weight >> fraction of blocked guards. We don't expect that people will do this >> calculation themselves, which is why we say "don't do that".) > > Would it be a better approach than firewall blocking, setting > "ExcludeNodes + StrictNodes" with the offending/suspicious fingerprints? No, this is much worse: it blocks these nodes for guard, middle, intro, and rend points. That's even more detectable than blocking middle nodes after a bridge. If you must block, only block a few guards, and only short-term. This is a hard area to get right - reducing the threat of node subsets needs more research. T

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by teor 09 Dec '17

09 Dec '17

> On 9 Dec 2017, at 03:35, x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: > > Hidden Service operators, and private guards operators protecting yours > Hidden Services, if you believe it is better safe than sorry, I strongly > advise on blocking the above IP addresses in your firewall, while they are > not pulled out of the network. There's no evidence these guards are malicious. They might just be run by an operator who doesn't know to set ContactInfo and MyFamily. (And MyFamily is irrelevant for relays in a /16, anyway.) We are working on vanguards in 0.3.3 to address onion service guard discovery issues like this. That way, we change the entire network so onion services are safer. Changing just a few makes them stick out. By "private guards" do you mean "bridges"? That would be a very bad idea: it would make the bridge and its onion services stand out within minutes or hours on the network, because each circuit gets a different middle node, and the nodes would not be evenly distributed. If you block a guards on an onion service, it will look different, but that might be unnoticeable for a few months. (More precisely, it's safe in proportion the guard rotation period, divided by the number of related onion services blocking those guards, divided by the consensus weight fraction of blocked guards. We don't expect that people will do this calculation themselves, which is why we say "don't do that".) But we really don't recommend people block guards or set EntryNodes on an onion service. It's quite risky long-term. T

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Action relays on 188.214.30.0/24 subnet
by teor 08 Dec '17

08 Dec '17

> On 6 Dec 2017, at 15:14, x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: > > > 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. Clients don't choose relays in the same /16 in the same circuit. So I don't think this is a danger to users. We would like to write a polite email saying: "thanks for helping Tor, please add a family to your config". But since they haven't provided contact details, we can't do that. T -- Tim / teor PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n ------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 3

companies and organizations running relays
by Alison Macrina 08 Dec '17

08 Dec '17

Hi all, Phoul and I are working on a blog post/guide to encourage more relay operators. The post will include technical and legal information for relay operators, but also things that are in more of a "social" category, like information for starting a relay operators group on a college campus. In that section, we want to highlight a few of the companies or non-profit organizations that run relays, but we're realizing that we don't actually have an up to date list. I'm wondering if folks on this list can help me by confirming the organizations that they know of running relays. Thanks! And if you're interested in contributing to the relay operators draft we have so far, please ping me off list. Something this comprehensive can always use an extra pair of eyes. Thanks, Alison -- Alison Macrina Community Team Lead The Tor Project

12 11

So long and thanks for all the abuse complaints
by James 07 Dec '17

07 Dec '17

As a private individual, after just receiving my 4th abuse complaint in as many days it's time to stop running my exit node. Prior to today I'd receive on average 1-2 complaints a month (I had a fairly strict exit policy). It saddens me that I have to shut it down, especially as it's one of very few running on BSD, but I just don't have the time to constantly respond to abuse complaints to ensure I don't get shut down by the upstream provider. If there are any devs on this list, some kind of mechanism to detect and block abuse traffic on exit would go a long way to ensuring legitimate use of the network, that is after all why people run exit nodes. It's at least why I did. Thank you to everyone else running an exit node. I hope you're able to keep yours going for a lot longer than I. James

13 23

Too many connections warning
by Logforme 07 Dec '17

07 Dec '17

I run the non-exit relay Logforme (855BC2DABE24C861CD887DB9B2E950424B49FC34). Today I saw a new warning in my tor log file: Dec 07 09:48:12.000 [warn] Failing because we have 32735 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance. The relay runs on an old Debian Wheezy machine. Me being a Linux noob I tried to read the doc/TUNING document (https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/doc/TUNING) but the only information I deemed suitable for me was "Use ulimit -n", which I ran and it reported "1024". I guess that's not of interest for this warning. Over the years I have added some stuff to my sysctl.conf file that I have picked up. Don't remember from where: # Tor net.core.rmem_max = 33554432 net.core.wmem_max = 33554432 net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 33554432 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 33554432 net.core.rmem_default = 524287 net.core.wmem_default = 524287 net.core.optmem_max = 524287 net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 300000 net.ipv4.tcp_mem = 33554432 33554432 33554432 net.ipv4.tcp_max_orphans = 300000 net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 300000 net.ipv4.tcp_fin_timeout = 4 vm.min_free_kbytes = 65536 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_time = 60 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_intvl = 10 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_probes = 3 net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1025 65530 net.core.somaxconn = 30720 net.ipv4.tcp_max_tw_buckets = 2000000 net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 0 net.ipv4.tcp_challenge_ack_limit = 999999999 None of the values seem to match the 32735 mentioned in the warning so I'm at a loss for what I am supposed to change. Anyone knowledgeable of these things that can give me some pointers?

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] So long and thanks for all the abuse complaints
by tor＠t-3.net 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

Abuse complaints are how this thing goes. With your limited exit policy, you would hardly see any complaints (relatively speaking), and what you do see would be mostly like SQL hack complaints and such. It's usually not going to be cases where someone got all the way into someone's machine, it's going to be mainly complaints about attempts. I feel like a short notification should be all you need and you're done with responses to stuff like that, such as: Hi <person>, That is the Tor exit router we host. https://www.torproject.org . Unfortunately, bad actors sometimes misuse Tor for things like this. If your attacker proves to be a serious problem, you may wish to block the entire Tor network from your device. A list of Tor exits can be seen here (and there is also an RBL somewhere): https://check.torproject.org/cgi-bin/TorBulkExitList.py?ip=1.1.1.1 . Blocking one Tor exit such as mine won't really stop the person. Also, if I configure my node not to exit to you, the attacker won't necessarily even notice, as Tor will automatically route him through a different exit node. Regards, - < your sig > While it's true that the suggestion about blocking all of Tor isn't ideal for the internet at large, in particular as a response to stupid scans or web hack attempts that don't actually get in, there are cases where it may make sense for a server operator to do that on a single system, if only temporarily. The main points in this response are the explanations of what Tor is (via the provided link) and why it never makes sense from the attacked server's perspective for a single exit to stop exiting to it specifically. The affected server operator has the choice of ignoring the attempts, or fixing whatever vulnerability is there if one is being exploited, or blocking all of Tor. You as a single exit operator are not a part of that. There was only one time that I got a bullshit response back from someone as a result of what I'd sent, and he could be safely ignored, as he was just an idiot who thought that Tor was a bad thing. There was another guy who was ignoring my responses and emailing our abuse box repeatedly - he comes from a relatively rare mindspring.com address. If that is the one complaining about your exit, he's worthless. I configured our mail server to reject his abuse complaints outright (we own our own IP space, so, this is simpler for us than it would be for you). That mindspring.com guy also had the bright idea of emailing the networks he saw along his traceroute, thinking that we are a customer of those networks (we're not).

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by Aneesh Dogra 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: > > Actually this also caught my attention on this 10 nodes from 188.214.30/24: > > https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/188.214.30 > > All from Romania, relays, ports 443/9030, good bandwidth 17-26MiB, uptime > almost identical, and no family member set. One is even named CIA :) > > Contact is set to none also. > > welcome! > > Looks scary. Interesting to see they all have high guard probabilities. :-? -- Regardless, I hope you're well and happy - Aneesh

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by Valter Jansons 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

A little relay node of a consensus around 220 checking in here. I am seeing pretty much the same as others are reporting - 11 on 188.214.30.0/24 and 10 on 217.12.223.0/24. The AS is called THC Projects SRL. They seem to provide VPS hosting among other things and ipinfo.io/AS51177 <https://ipinfo.io/AS51177#domains> reports that they host a lot of domains over there as well. Not sure how seriously one should take this, but it's interesting for sure regardless. -- 4096R/A83CE748 Valters Jansons On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:50 PM x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: > > my second and third positions are similar: > > 9 217.12.223.0/24 (family and contact info set) > 8 178.16.208.0/24 (family and contact info set, too) > > > > Interesting to see. I have similar stats. 10 connections from > > 188.214.30.0/24, second up 8 connections from 178.16.208.0/24. Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> first measure on a good day how many connection per /24 your exit/relay > >> have, excluding these with 1 2 or just 3 connections: > >> > >> # netstat -tupan | grep ESTABLISHED | grep /tor | awk '{print $5}' | awk > >> -F: '{print $1}' | awk -F. '{print $1"."$2"."$3}' | sort | uniq -c | > >> sort > >> | egrep -v ' 1 | 2 | 3 ' > >> > >> with this information in hand, double the max of it (mine was 10 > >> connections from 188.214.30.0/24): > >> > >> 10 188.214.30 > >> > >> iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m connlimit --connlimit-above 20 > >> --connlimit-mask 24 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset > >> > >> cheers. > >> > >> x9p > >> > >> >> connlimit per /24. it does more good than evil. > >> > > >> > Any guidance on the specifics? Like how many concurrent connections to > >> > allow per /24? Not sure what's expected from legitimate user traffic > >> > through the relay... don't want to make things worse. > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Regardless, I hope you're well and happy - > > Aneesh > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by Aneesh Dogra 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

Interesting to see. I have similar stats. 10 connections from 188.214.30.0/24, second up 8 connections from 178.16.208.0/24. Thanks! On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, x9p <tor(a)x9p.org> wrote: > > first measure on a good day how many connection per /24 your exit/relay > have, excluding these with 1 2 or just 3 connections: > > # netstat -tupan | grep ESTABLISHED | grep /tor | awk '{print $5}' | awk > -F: '{print $1}' | awk -F. '{print $1"."$2"."$3}' | sort | uniq -c | sort > | egrep -v ' 1 | 2 | 3 ' > > with this information in hand, double the max of it (mine was 10 > connections from 188.214.30.0/24): > > 10 188.214.30 > > iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m connlimit --connlimit-above 20 > --connlimit-mask 24 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset > > cheers. > > x9p > > >> connlimit per /24. it does more good than evil. > > > > Any guidance on the specifics? Like how many concurrent connections to > > allow per /24? Not sure what's expected from legitimate user traffic > > through the relay... don't want to make things worse. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Regardless, I hope you're well and happy - Aneesh

2 2

Re: [tor-relays] DoS attacks on multiple relays
by null 05 Dec '17

05 Dec '17

> connlimit per /24. it does more good than evil. Any guidance on the specifics? Like how many concurrent connections to allow per /24? Not sure what's expected from legitimate user traffic through the relay... don't want to make things worse.

2 2

Save the date! Thursday, Dec 07 - Tor Meetup in NYC
by isabela＠riseup.net 04 Dec '17

04 Dec '17

Hello community! We are sending this 'save the date' note to let you know that on Thursday December 7th on the 20th floor of 150 Broadway in the LMHQ shared meeting space at 6:45 PM. There are a lot of folks from the community in NYC so we thought it would be cool to have some time share skills, learn new things, and be a place for new folks who want to get involve to come and meet folks. For this first one we will be talking about our community of relay operators. You can read more at this blog post: https://blog.torproject.org/explore-tor-new-york-city-new-meetup-starting-d… So if you are in the area, come and join us! cheers, Isabela

3 2

Please disregard 'excessive bounce' notice
by Damian Johnson 01 Dec '17

01 Dec '17

Hi all. Everyone with a gmail account not a notice that their subscription was suspended due to excessive bounces. You can ignore this notice, no action is needed on your part. I'm not entirely sure of the root cause but something similar happened a few years back with another list too. I've disabled automated bounce processing and re-enabled everyone's subscription. Cheers! -Damian

1 0

do the 800+ UbuntuCore relays constitute a Sybil attack?
by starlight.2017q4＠binnacle.cx 01 Dec '17

01 Dec '17

The population of these has been climbing for more than a week and no-one has commented, which seems odd. No contact provided. https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/UbuntuCore

4 4

Tor security releases coming tomorrow
by Nick Mathewson 30 Nov '17

30 Nov '17

I'm sending this message to announce that we will be releasing new stable and versions of Tor tomorrow, to fix 5 security bugs. I apologise for the short notice; we've had to move up our intended release date in order to try to match with release deadlines for downstream projects. We have classified 3 of these bugs as Medium and 2 as High, per draft security process at https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/Securit… . The most serious bugs are a pair of denial-of-service issues, which we treat as high security because of the possibility of escalating them for traffic-analysis purposes. Note that only the following series are supported, and only they will receive updates: 0.2.5, 0.2.8, 0.2.9, 0.3.0, 0.3.1, and 0.3.2. 0.2.8 and 0.3.0 will become unsupported in January; 0.2.5 will become unsupported in May. best wishes, -- Nick

1 0

Screening DNS
by Dr Gerard Bulger 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

The DNS 9.9.9.9 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/20/quad9_secure_private_dns_resolver/ At least is not blocking my exit node IP, simply because it is TOR! Nice. So far. Gerry

6 7

ymkeo offline
by René Ladan 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

Hi, due to hardware problems my node ymkeo 4E8CE6F5651E7342C1E7E5ED031E82078134FB0D will be offline for an undetermined amount of time. René

1 1

Re: [tor-relays] Detecting Network Attack [re: exit synflooded]
by Dhalgren Tor 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

>Well, it's still going on, and is pretty much ruining Libero :( . Running CentOS 6, here. > >When it's happening it can look like this: > ># netstat -n | grep -c SYN >17696 I run a fast exit and can offer some advice: 1) mitigate bug #18580 (also #21394); is a DNS denial-of-service and could be the problem. either upgrade to 0.3.2.4+ or edit resolve.conf per https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/DnsResolver#Tuningeventdn… also check out https://arthuredelstein.net/exits/ 2) if you continue to experience excessive outbound scanning SYNs, I've found that simply enabling connection tracking helps by implicitly limiting the rate a which connections can originate. If an iptables "-m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT" rule exists it will turn it on or you could modprobe the module if you don't want to configure incoming connection rules. some useful sysctl.conf changes, run sysctl -p after or reboot # Tor Exit tuning. net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1025 65535 net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries = 2 net.ipv4.tcp_max_tw_buckets = 4194304 net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_fin_timeout = 30 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_time = 300 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_intvl = 10 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_probes = 3 net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established = 1000 net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_checksum = 0 you might see many messages: kernel: nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet which indicates no connection table slots were available for an outbound connection and that rate limiting is effected state of connection tracking appears in /proc/net/nf_conntrack

4 5

Re: [tor-relays] Pretty sure our exit was being synflooded
by tor＠t-3.net 26 Nov '17

26 Nov '17

I spoke too soon, it seems - the exit is struggling again, with some time spent destroyed today. As I look at what it's doing, it's clear that someone is relaying SYN packets to random ports and also random destination addresses that aren't even alive. The destination hosts and ports continually vary - it never hits multiple destinations on 1 port, and it does not hit multiple ports on 1 host. I presume it is an attack that is intended to degrade this relay's service quality, or otherwise more broadly, degrade Tor. I'm going to reject a few more trojan listen ports, it might help but it isn't a real fix. My thought btw was for Tor to rate-limit syn scanning activity between the client and the first onion router, with the function taking place in that first-hop router, not at the exit.

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Pretty sure our exit was being synflooded
by tor＠t-3.net 26 Nov '17

26 Nov '17

Thanks for the configuration suggestions. I intentionally set the conntrack limit high, maybe that was not the best thing. I think I'll be putting it back. Removing my extra IPTables code plus adding a reject for :8888 has made the exit behave properly again. I wonder if the best possible course of action for this sort of thing would be within Tor itself. I don't know that it was a single client connection into Tor that was causing all this trouble, but maybe it was. One would think that one client should not be allowed to do something so severe with the TCP that it can single-handedly ruin a fast exit. Maybe a code change that forces a rate-limit that significantly slows down the ability of a single client to roll port scans should be considered by the devs.

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Detecting Network Attack [re: exit synflooded]
by tor＠t-3.net 26 Nov '17

26 Nov '17

Well, it's still going on, and is pretty much ruining Libero :( . Running CentOS 6, here. Actually, I think from what I'm seeing that it may not exactly be a synflood targeting Libero. I think Libero may be being (ab)used to do massive portscanning or similar. Image should be visible below - it's normal statistics for the 18th through say, part of the 21st, messed up 22ed - 24th and on the 24th me trying different things in an attempt to mitigate (graph is from yesterday). Look at the SYN_SENT2 maximum. When it's happening it can look like this: # netstat -n | grep -c SYN 17696 # Also one tiny part of the netstat looked like this: tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:33354 <external IP munged>:81 SYN_SENT tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:39659 <external IP munged>:8888 SYN_SENT tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:44247 <external IP munged>:87 SYN_SENT tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:42038 <external IP munged>:8888 SYN_SENT tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:42077 <external IP munged>:83 SYN_SENT tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:36282 <external IP munged>:8888 SYN_SENT tcp 0 1 64.113.32.29:46023 <external IP munged>:8888 SYN_SENT Port 8888 is supposedly opened up for listen by a virus.

3 3

Detecting Network Attack [re: exit synflooded]
by grarpamp 26 Nov '17

26 Nov '17

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, <tor(a)t-3.net> wrote: > Was anyone else's exit being synflooded yesterday and today? There could be a combined monitoring array deployed among all nodes that might start to answer these questions. And further alert on all sorts of interesting network attacks launched at Tor. Software exploits... segmentation / modulation attacks... etc. This is perimeter security 101, and Tor currently has no fence, no guard dogs, not even a janitor you can ask the next day. That's beyond bad. And big oppurtunity for new research project.

2 2

Tor Metrics issue
by Arisbe 25 Nov '17

25 Nov '17

In the immediate past I monitored both my relays and my bridges through atlas. So, now with Tor Metrics, I don't see my bridges. Am I doing something wrong or are they not in the data base? Arisbe

4 5