- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: Having trouble with setting up a relay in a censored country.
by George Hartley 22 Jan '25

22 Jan '25

Hi, sorry for the late reply, I was busy working. The only thing that stands out to me immediately is that you configured two separate ControlPort authentication methods: > HashedControlPassword XX:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > CookieAuthentication 1 You might want to comment out the first line. Otherwise, everything else looks correct. P.S: Since you do not run a bridge, there is no need to un-comment the obfs4 related settings: > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:9002 This will do nothing, unless you actually configure the relay to be a bridge. Try to comment both HashedControlPassword and the obfs4 settings, and restart the relay. nyx should now work - additionally, you might want to check the log using journalctl -u tor. There should be a line stating that your ORPort is reachable from the outside, and that your server descriptor has been published. If that is not the case, then I would conclude that your host / ISP is up to some "funny" business, and you might not be able to run a normal relay. Since I can't find any relay with your specified nickname, I assume that it is still not working. However, you could still run an obfs4 bridge, which should work fine in Russia - if you can do this, please do.. any relay or bridge not run by intelligence agencies or government helps! Regards, -GH On Wednesday, January 15th, 2025 at 3:23 PM, nyyymi <nyyymi(a)protonmail.com> wrote: > Hi, here is my torrc file. Enabling cookieauth didn't change anything >

1 0

All of my nodes have been banned
by petition_tricky750＠simplelogin.com 21 Jan '25

21 Jan '25

Hello, What are some of the most common reasons for relays and exits to be banned from Tor? Had it happen to all of my 5 nodes and I'm currently awaiting response from bad-relays list. They all present this in logs Jan 18 20:41:40 example.com Tor[2439671]: http status 400 ("Fingerprint and/or ed25519 identity is marked rejected -- if you think this is a mistake please set a valid email address in ContactInfo and send an email to bad-relays(a)lists.torproject.org mentioning your fingerprint(s)?") response from dirserver 204.13.164.118:80. Please correct. All of them have been running just fine before 4E1E745FF661657E3D3CE10DF1A1AEEF1D3F7996 2D9D4F0D298C68044F2476DFCB191CEBCE7AC860 078B7B30953A6DA8BB73612035BB876EA90847E3 DE3550EBB205660730900C05B6330B663CEED25434A09907FB89BE444A0A456C12A1A9C54CCF1A8A I'm genuinely curious if others also had it happen to them, and the reason behind it. Thank you.

2 2

Possible attack on servers via Tor Guard relays?
by x9p 19 Jan '25

19 Jan '25

Hi, I am running a relay and other servers. Sometimes doing SSHD over Tor via a hidden service in a VPS in openbsd.amsterdam. In all my other setups, in other providers, I do not see this problem happening. Upon connecting for the first time, I do get a "banner line contains invalid characters" error, and the connection is terminated. (MSG1) Upon connecting for the second time, everything goes smooth. (MSG2) Problem is happening on my 2 servers in openbsd.amsterdam. Any directions into debugging this problem? Both via Tor or via SSHD? Is it possible a bad guard is logging the IPs first connecting, then dropping the connection, and then allowing the connection to succeed later? Any directions would be appreciated to solve the problem. System: uname -a OpenBSD xxxx.yyyy.com 7.6 GENERIC#501 amd64 Tor version: Tor version 0.4.8.13. MSG1 (BAD): localhost:~# torify ssh -v ams02 OpenSSH_9.9p1, OpenSSL 3.3.2 3 Sep 2024 debug1: Reading configuration data /root/.ssh/config debug1: /root/.ssh/config line 284: Applying options for ams02 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 22: include /etc/ssh/ssh_config.d/*.conf matched no files debug1: Connecting to ngbjd5vpxamy5d63hcflinghioo2qa5e75uiysscmo4ml5qd4rpaobid.onion [127.42.42.0] port 60113. debug1: Connection established. debug1: identity file /root/.ssh/oams002_2 type 0 debug1: identity file /root/.ssh/oams002_2-cert type -1 debug1: Local version string SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.9 kex_exchange_identification: banner line contains invalid characters banner exchange: Connection to 127.42.42.0 port 60113: invalid format MSG2 (OK): localhost:~# torify ssh -v ams02 OpenSSH_9.9p1, OpenSSL 3.3.2 3 Sep 2024 debug1: Reading configuration data /root/.ssh/config localhost:~# torify ssh -v ams02 OpenSSH_9.9p1, OpenSSL 3.3.2 3 Sep 2024 debug1: Reading configuration data /root/.ssh/config debug1: /root/.ssh/config line 284: Applying options for ams02 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 22: include /etc/ssh/ssh_config.d/*.conf matched no files debug1: Connecting to ngbjd5vpxamy5d63hcflinghioo2qa5e75uiysscmo4ml5qd4rpaobid.onion [127.42.42.0] port 60113. debug1: Connection established. debug1: identity file /root/.ssh/oams002_2 type 0 debug1: identity file /root/.ssh/oams002_2-cert type -1 debug1: Local version string SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.9 debug1: Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version OpenSSH_9.9 debug1: compat_banner: match: OpenSSH_9.9 pat OpenSSH* compat 0x04000000 debug1: Authenticating to ngbjd5vpxamy5d63hcflinghioo2qa5e75uiysscmo4ml5qd4rpaobid.onion:60113 as 'xxxxxxxxxx' debug1: load_hostkeys: fopen /root/.ssh/known_hosts2: No such file or directory debug1: load_hostkeys: fopen /etc/ssh/ssh_known_hosts: No such file or directory debug1: load_hostkeys: fopen /etc/ssh/ssh_known_hosts2: No such file or directory debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT received debug1: kex: algorithm: sntrup761x25519-sha512 debug1: kex: host key algorithm: ssh-ed25519 debug1: kex: server->client cipher: chacha20-poly1305(a)openssh.com MAC: <implicit> compression: none debug1: kex: client->server cipher: chacha20-poly1305(a)openssh.com MAC: <implicit> compression: none --x9p

3 2

Re: Having trouble with setting up a relay in a censored country.
by Marco Moock 16 Jan '25

16 Jan '25

Am 15.01.2025 um 16:25:42 Uhr schrieb nyyymi: > > Please post your torrc (without comments). > > and the IP addresses of the machine. > Ip is 192.168.1.113. This is a private IPv4 address, unreachable from the internet by design. You need to set up port forwarding in your router to make it reachable. Did you do that? If your ISP provides IPv6, you need to create a firewall rule in your router to allow access. Because that doesn't use NAT, no port forwarding is needed. > I've let the relay run for a bit, errors started > to accumulate. "Problem bootstrapping. Stuck at 5% (conn): Connecting > to a relay. (Connection timed out; TIMEOUT; count 25.." and "25 > connections died in state connect()ing with SSL state (no SSL object)" Please test ncat -v tr.dorfdsl.de 9001 If that doesn't work, those problems must be first fixed. -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1736954742muell(a)cartoonies.org

1 0

Re: Having trouble with setting up a relay in a censored country.
by Marco Moock 16 Jan '25

16 Jan '25

Am Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:01:44 +0000 schrieb nyyymi <nyyymi(a)protonmail.com>: > Nickname is nyymi. It doesn't show up on the relay search That is an indicator that something isn't working. Please post your torrc (without comments). and the IP addresses of the machine.

1 0

Having trouble with setting up a relay in a censored country.
by nyyymi 16 Jan '25

16 Jan '25

Hello. For the past few days I've been trying to open a tor-relay on my old laptop running arch. The tor service starts fine but when I check nyx no traffic goes through me, both download and upload is 0. Nyx shows Unknown:portnumber. I doubt that the port is closed or somehow unavailable since arch's defaults are wide open. And for some reason my tor version (0.4.8.13) shows up as "unknown" as well. I thought the issue may lie in torproject's ban in Russia but somehow other people run relays just fine? (https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/country:ru) I've set up obsf4 as well but It didn't change anything Im quite new in all of this so bear with me. Thanks -Arttu

3 2

Question: Relay speed South Africa
by Carlo P. 16 Jan '25

16 Jan '25

Hello experts, I have, from the same provider, two VPS with same specs (also same port speed of 200MBit/s, verified via speedtest-cli) - one in Germany, one in South Africa. Whilst the German one behaves as expected (two fast relays on it), the two relays in South Africa won't really get up to speed - barely traffic, and advertised bandwidth below 2MB/s . In general, search for country:za on metrics does not really look too impressive. Do you have any idea about the reason, i.e. why, despite the VPS having the bandwidth, the relays do not get up to speed? Thanks - C. -- Sent with https://mailfence.com Secure and private email

3 2

My web-bridges looks offline in the Relay Search
by Brook Rameev 10 Jan '25

10 Jan '25

Hello! Today all my web tunnel relays become offline according to https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/BrookRameev (my web tunnel bridges have the 'W' suffix). But they are surely online (except BrookRameev7W, which is surely dead). I see traffic on them, I see no problems in logs, nothing changed in their configuration. I also checked them using tor browser. All of them "went down" at the same time: " 1 hour 17 minute and 48 seconds" from the current moment. The problem relates only to webtunnels, ordinal relays work normally. Good luck.

4 5

Tor node shutdown
by Tschador 30 Dec '24

30 Dec '24

FYI: My Tor node »TorMachine« (6A7551EEE18F78A9813096E82BF84F740D32B911) will be shut down on 2024-12-31. Sorry folks – but I'm too old for the job. Good luck and all the best wishes for the future!

3 2

Re: Strange UFW logs from another Tor node - update.
by code9n＠pm.me 30 Dec '24

30 Dec '24

On Thursday, December 26th, 2024 at 12:00, tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org <tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org> wrote: > > > Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tor-relays-owner(a)lists.torproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: What're these ufw block logs saying? (George Hartley) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:55:08 +0000 > From: George Hartley hartley_george(a)proton.me > > Subject: [tor-relays] Re: What're these ufw block logs saying? > To: "tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org" > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org, "code9n(a)pm.me" code9n(a)pm.me > > Message-ID: <9ct9ASpMXXnKRo6w2spT3sRh5hspGh1EqSneiQFDwbhNlI4ZZLyU8F2f3 > 3x_KowFg5e-IYk7P0soKNit50FrGm61lKh50WazDZNkCyfJ5qs=(a)proton.me> > > Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; > micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="------b4924ec6e97f2ee894d2a6644c496d719be > 5fc5bbba1fc1072274ea1ae63bf7c"; charset=utf-8 > > Hello, > > this is weird indeed, but the packet size is interesting. > > For example, using the tool MTR, you can trace the route to another host using different protocols: > > 1.) ICMP being the obvious default. > 2.) TCP. > 3.) UDP. > > If all these TCP packets were just below 100 bytes, that would be my guess. > > Looking up the relay, there is a name, e-mail contact and PGP key ID for this node operator: > > "Tom" > tom(a)kh6ilt.org > 0x620836CF > > Just ask this operator first to check his server for something that could cause this, and if he is running something special alongside Tor. > > Then, if that does not sufficiently explain or resolve the spurious packets, I would recommend to install tcpdump, and to use a syntax like: > > > sudo tcpdump tcp and src host 155.138.146.249 and not dst port 443 -w dump.pcap > > > You will need elevated privileges in order to run tcpdump. > > This will guarantee to exclude all legitimate Tor traffic originating from his server by excluding destination port 443, and log the remaining packets to file "dump.pcap". > > You can add the -i <interface> parameter to the beginning of the tcpdump argument list if you have multiple public interfaces. > > > Like so: > > tcpdump -i eth0 <other arguments> > > > Once the dump is finished, you can send signal 2 / SIGINT if the process is running in the background, or simply press CTRL + C.. both ways lead to a graceful exit of tcpdump: > > > kill --signal 2 tcpdump > > > Now you can inspect the traffic using a GUI tool like Wireshark (highly recommended) which can parse .pcap files and decode / recognize many types of packets. > > Please report back what you find! > > All the best, > -GH > > > On Monday, December 23rd, 2024 at 6:46 PM, code9n via tor-relays tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org wrote: > > > Hi, > > > re. my (guard / middle relay) : 181.215.226.65 : 443 : http://hctxrvjzfpvmzh2jllqhgvvkoepxb4kfzdjm6h7egcwlumggtktiftid.onion/rs.ht… > > > I'm getting traffic from another (non-exit) relay : 155.138.146.249 : 9001 : http://hctxrvjzfpvmzh2jllqhgvvkoepxb4kfzdjm6h7egcwlumggtktiftid.onion/rs.ht… ( CCed) > > > always from port 9001 but to different, high number destination (on my vps) ports which ufw is blocking. > > This isn't Tor traffic I'm blocking, right? That would only come to my ORport? Is this abuse attempts? Under the cover of Tor relay traffic? They're quite infrequent (sample) : > > > Dec 23 14:33:29 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2228957.705152] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=37256 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 14:33:34 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2228962.788380] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=37256 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 14:52:36 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2230104.586835] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=55546 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 14:53:16 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2230144.487410] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=55546 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 14:53:54 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2230183.086653] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=55546 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 15:16:42 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2231550.336547] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=40998 WINDOW=0 RES=0x00 ACK RST URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 15:18:15 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2231644.112246] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=40998 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 15:22:31 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2231900.117391] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=40998 WINDOW=0 RES=0x00 ACK RST URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 15:42:30 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2233098.835686] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=32822 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 15:43:34 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2233162.852181] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=32822 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 15:45:42 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2233290.874044] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=32822 WINDOW=0 RES=0x00 ACK PSH RST URGP=0 > > > Dec 23 16:14:43 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2235032.148940] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=1124 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=47586 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 > > > Thanks, > > > Pete > >

1 0

Re: Question about middle relays and common web usage annoyances
by Zachary 29 Dec '24

29 Dec '24

I wanted to chime in. I run an entry-middle relay in my basement connected to 300mbps fiber. It doesn’t push much traffic but it’s mine and I’m proud. The bank where I do my banking blocked our IP. After carefully explaining the situation to their IT team, they contacted their web host and had them whitelist my IP. It changed recently because I registered a new router on my ISP’s network, and they happily whitelisted that one too. My bank is a small town bank where everyone knows everyone, and I’m sure it would be much harder at some big corporate bank. Nonetheless, it’s always possible to make a change! Zachary

1 0

Question about middle relays and common web usage annoyances
by tor＠computhings.be 27 Dec '24

27 Dec '24

Hello, I'm located in Belgium. I keep two small middle relays (no exit, not even guard)… https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/89B4597169A9DBB171F0B4629C73… https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/07E3A0DC6AD4A5F07D1AF942626E… If I browse the web using a common browser using the basic services of the ISPs (no torbrowser, no tor network) and at least since may 2023, I've observed that some websites (banks, federal services,…) simply don't respond when I want to open their webpages. If I use another IP from the same locations (using vpn, ssh proxy, whatever), those same websites simply respond and works without issue. If I switch back to the local ISP IP, those are unreachable, and so on. If I contact those ISPs or the banks IT services, for them there are no problem. For me, it's clear that hosting simple middle relays puts my ISPs IPs to some black lists handled by who knows who. If hosting basic middle relays is blocking common web services, it will be hard / nearly impossible for me to encourage family, friends or customers to host a basic middle relays. Maybe there is no need for more and more middle relays, I don't know. Does someone encounter the same kind of annoyances ? regards, tierce

6 5

What're these ufw block logs saying?
by code9n＠pm.me 25 Dec '24

25 Dec '24

Hi, re. my (guard / middle relay) : 181.215.226.65 : 443 : http://hctxrvjzfpvmzh2jllqhgvvkoepxb4kfzdjm6h7egcwlumggtktiftid.onion/rs.ht… I'm getting traffic from another (non-exit) relay : 155.138.146.249 : 9001 : http://hctxrvjzfpvmzh2jllqhgvvkoepxb4kfzdjm6h7egcwlumggtktiftid.onion/rs.ht… ( CCed) always from port 9001 but to different, high number destination (on my vps) ports which ufw is blocking. This isn't Tor traffic I'm blocking, right? That would only come to my ORport? Is this abuse attempts? Under the cover of Tor relay traffic? They're quite infrequent (sample) : Dec 23 14:33:29 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2228957.705152] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=37256 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 14:33:34 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2228962.788380] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=37256 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 14:52:36 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2230104.586835] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=55546 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 14:53:16 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2230144.487410] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=55546 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 14:53:54 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2230183.086653] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=55546 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 15:16:42 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2231550.336547] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=40998 WINDOW=0 RES=0x00 ACK RST URGP=0 Dec 23 15:18:15 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2231644.112246] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=40998 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 15:22:31 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2231900.117391] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=40998 WINDOW=0 RES=0x00 ACK RST URGP=0 Dec 23 15:42:30 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2233098.835686] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=32822 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 15:43:34 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2233162.852181] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=32822 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Dec 23 15:45:42 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2233290.874044] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=588 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=32822 WINDOW=0 RES=0x00 ACK PSH RST URGP=0 Dec 23 16:14:43 xxxxxxxx kernel: [2235032.148940] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:16:3e:b0:d2:70:e4:5d:37:86:2c:2c:08:00 SRC=155.138.146.249 DST=181.215.226.65 LEN=1124 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=55 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=9001 DPT=47586 WINDOW=1027 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Thanks, Pete

2 1

An update regarding the raid in August
by Artikel 5 e.V. 25 Dec '24

25 Dec '24

Hello everyone! The holidays and the 38C3 are coming up. Unfortunately nobody from our organization will be able to attend the congress in person this year. In case that the police raid in August is going to be a topic for the relay operators meetup, we would like to provide you with a small update regarding the current state here. The legal complaint procedure is still ongoing but last week -after several delays- we were finally able to get access to the court records for the case. We are not allowed to (and will not) directly quote/publish any of this material. We can however make the following information public at this point: - This case is about an (unsuccessful) cybergrooming attempt from Q2/2024. - We have a list of IP-Adresses supposedly used by the perpetrator. - Only one of them is one of our exit nodes. - Others point to other exit nodes. - Some of these other exit nodes are also run by German organizations. - To our knowledge, none of these other organizations were visited like we were. - In contrast to what the prosecution stated as part of the complaint procedure, several pages in the case file clearly state that they knew and fully understood that the server in question was never located at the home/mail address of our organization. - This was clear even before the case was handed off to the local department responsible for our current registered address. - At least some of the people involved also fully understand Tor and the implications. - As we suspected, they also knew (and documented) upfront that this was a home address and not some sort of rented office or server farm. - In combination, it looks a lot like several involved parties did not fully read and/or understand the entire file before playing their part in the puzzle. It pretty much confirms what we already suspected. Whether all this is a simple result of repeated organizational failure, unfortunate lack of technical understanding or even malicious intent against us or the Tor network in general, is an interpretation we will leave up to you. Just be aware that if you are operating Tor exits in Germany, this could currently happen to you as well - even if you follow ALL the best-practices rules and recommendations currently out there. Maybe we just have the "luck" of being registered at the wrong city with the wrong people working on these cases. Maybe not. In any case... enjoy the holidays and (if you attend) the congress in Hamburg as well. Kind regards, Gero for Artikel 5 e.V.

1 0

Re: Question about middle relays and common web usage annoyances
by Isaac Grover, Aileron I.T. 25 Dec '24

25 Dec '24

Good morning tierce, I suspect that the sites you're unable to access are using https://www.dan.me.uk/dnsbl or another blocklist provider that naively blocks middle relays and/or entry relays instead of/in addition to exit relays. If you don't want to or can't pay for third-party hosting to move your middle relay outside your network, one solution would be to contact your ISP and move from your single IP address to a block of five IP addresses, with one IP address dedicated to your middle relay and the other IP addresses dedicated to your browsing and other traffic needs. Make your day great, Isaac Grover, President/vCIO Aileron I.T. – “ Because #ProactiveIsBetter ” O: 715-377-0440, F:715-690-1029, W: www.aileronit.com -----Original Message----- From: tor(a)computhings.be Hello, I'm located in Belgium. I keep two small middle relays (no exit, not even guard)… https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/89B4597169A9DBB171F0B4629C73… https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/07E3A0DC6AD4A5F07D1AF942626E… If I browse the web using a common browser using the basic services of the ISPs (no torbrowser, no tor network) and at least since may 2023, I've observed that some websites (banks, federal services,…) simply don't respond when I want to open their webpages. If I use another IP from the same locations (using vpn, ssh proxy, whatever), those same websites simply respond and works without issue. If I switch back to the local ISP IP, those are unreachable, and so on. If I contact those ISPs or the banks IT services, for them there are no problem. For me, it's clear that hosting simple middle relays puts my ISPs IPs to some black lists handled by who knows who. If hosting basic middle relays is blocking common web services, it will be hard / nearly impossible for me to encourage family, friends or customers to host a basic middle relays. Maybe there is no need for more and more middle relays, I don't know. Does someone encounter the same kind of annoyances ? regards, tierce ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list -- tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to tor-relays-leave(a)lists.torproject.org ------------------------------ End of tor-relays Digest, Vol 167, Issue 13 *******************************************

1 0

Announcing the shutdown of our Tor Relay "ExitTheMatrix"
by George Hartley 24 Dec '24

24 Dec '24

Hello dear list readers and contributors, We received UDP floods (mostly through DNS Amplification) which were usually 60-70 GBit/s in size, up until a month ago this was not a problem for most of the exit relays lifetime, because we had a custom Tilera sitting between our server and the remaining infrastructure. Since the Tilera hardware was leftover hardware that we initially bought, maintained and installed in agreement with the colocation contract, the DC had no responsibility for it. Last month the Tilera failed, and additionally the DC had constant issues with their line-cards. So, now we just had our 1GbE link and the default 10GbE scrubbing provided by the DC's routers. This was not nearly enough, the largest attack ever we saw after that was reported to be over 140 GBit/s and also knocked some other servers in the same room offline too. These attacks were not directed towards my VM's bridged failover IP on the colocated server that I share with my friend, but towards the game servers he was hosting on his main NIC IP. Right now, every single attack above 10 GBit/s traffic will result in a null-route if it exceeds 60 seconds. This is incredibly cheap for malicious attackers to achieve, so I decided to take the relay offline for good and wipe the keys as well, both on my encrypted online cloud sync provider (MEGA) as well as from my machines MEGASync folder. The fingerprint is / was: 0F8538398C61ECBE83F595E3716F7CE7E4C77B21 If you look it up now, you will see it used to be on my own link for a while, but since we don't have a static IPv4 assignment (VDSL2 is still incredibly popular in rural areas such as the one that I live in), so the constantly changing IP address would have been just a pain in the butt for clients (one forced DSL disconnect every 24 hours). I currently don't have enough money for a decent dedicated server or VM and a host that I can trust which doesn't have too many Tor relays already. In total, according to vnstat, we routed 20TB's of exit traffic per month for the last 3 months, the relay was up for a total of around 292 days with a fresh set of secret keys, the relay before that, same name but different keys, was online for around 60 days while optimizing the hypervisor, libvirtd and guest OS for maximum performance / throughput). According to my calculation, we have contributed roughly ~180 Terabytes of exit traffic, and maybe 500GB's of Guard traffic (this was mainly an exit relay, so I didn't expect much more). I personally have been hosting Tor (Exit) Nodes for almost 10 years under different names and e-mail addresses, and it is definitely a New Year's resolution to continue that fashion. Tor was incredibly helpful for me, so I will continue return the favor. I also will continue to be active on the mailing list to help new people, as long as my time allows for it. Happy Holidays to everyone reading this, I sincerely hope you have a good time with your family and friends. All the best, -GH

1 0

Unable to bind to IPv6
by Eddie 23 Dec '24

23 Dec '24

I had an issue with my VPS that I didn't notice for a while where I had lost my IPv6 addressing. After contacting support they have restored the IPv6 address, but I'm now unable to bind to the address. I've a feeling it's more either my configuration or the VPS configuration at fault, not tor, but I thought I'd throw it out for ideas, as I'm not that confident (yet) with IPv6 stuff. Here's the interface: 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether a6:6a:08:73:42:27 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff altname enp0s18 inet xxx.yyy.87.222/26 brd xxx.yyy.87.255 scope global eth0 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 aaaa:bbbb:1a:10::1/64 scope global dadfailed tentative valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::a46a:8ff:fe73:4227/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever root@fw1475:~# ip -6 route aaaa:bbbb:1a:10::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium default via aaaa:bbbb:1a:10:a46a:8ff:fe73:4227 dev eth0 proto static metric 1024 pref medium And the netplan configuration: root@fw1475:~# netplan status Online state: online DNS Addresses: 127.0.0.53 (stub) DNS Search: . ● 1: lo ethernet UNKNOWN/UP (unmanaged) MAC Address: 00:00:00:00:00:00 Addresses: 127.0.0.1/8 ::1/128 ● 2: eth0 ethernet UP (networkd: eth0) MAC Address: a6:6a:08:73:42:27 (Red Hat, Inc.) Addresses: xxx.yyy.87.222/26 aaaa:bbbb:1a:10::1/64 fe80::a46a:8ff:fe73:4227/64 (link) DNS Addresses: 1.1.1.1 1.0.0.1 Routes: default via xxx.yyy.87.193 (static) xxx.yyy.87.192/26 from xxx.yyy.87.222 (link) aaaa:bbbb:1a:10::/64 metric 256 fe80::/64 metric 256 default via aaaa:bbbb:1a:10:a46a:8ff:fe73:4227 metric 1024 (static) And this is what I get from the IPv6 OR port, determined by commenting/uncommenting the relevant line in my previously working configuration: 2024-12-14T20:36:38.782783+00:00 fw1475 tor[2317]: Dec 14 20:36:38.782 [warn] Failed to parse/validate config: Failed to bind one of the listener ports. 2024-12-14T20:36:38.782821+00:00 fw1475 tor[2317]: Dec 14 20:36:38.782 [err] Reading config failed--see warnings above. Any ideas/help would be gratefully accepted. Cheers, Eddie

3 3

Standalone snowflake proxy re-testing as restricted
by 0x5fcfbd30＠proton.me 21 Dec '24

21 Dec '24

Hey there, I have been running a standalone snowflake proxy for quite some time now. First in a docker container, but now in its own linux container to have more control over it myself. This has worked out great so far with an ephemeral-ports-range of 200 ports. Those are forwarded to the linux container in my router. Since a few days, I noticed a big drop in connections per hour. I restarted the proxy and it tested as restricted even though all ports are properly forwarded and I see the UDP packets reaching the machine via tcpdump. After several restarts, I finally got it to confirm unrestricted but 6 hours later (default re-test period?), its restricted again. Just to rule out the obvious, is it only me having this problem? I'm building from source and git log says: commit f940d7d6efe423c4d7a901a33d34bb51086b4a41 Date: Tue Nov 26 16:19:49 2024 +0000 chore(deps): update module github.com/pion/ice/v4 to v4.0.3 I wonder if this is a problem of my local setup or a bug snowflake itself. Any ideas? Best regards, 0x5fcfbd30

3 3

Tor activities at 38th Chaos Communication Congress, Hamburg, 2024
by gus 21 Dec '24

21 Dec '24

Hello, Join us for Tor activities @ 38th Chaos Communication Congress (38C3): https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/ The 38th Chaos Communication Congress runs from December 27 to 30, 2024 in Hamburg. We've got a lineup of Tor activities happening during this congress! - December 28: "Guardians of the Onion" (20:30 - 21:30, Day 2): (live streaming, recorded) https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/hub/en/event/guardians-of-the-onion-ens… - December 29: "Tor Relay Operator meetup & State of the Onion Operators" (23:00 - 01:00, Day 3): https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/hub/en/event/tor-relay-operators-meetup… - December 30: "All things Tor related!" (11:00 - 13:00, Day 4): https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/hub/en/event/tor/ - Tor Project assembly (near Cold North/BornHack assembly): https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/hub/en/assembly/tor-project/ See you there! \o/ Gus -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead

1 0

Next Tor Relay Operator Meetup - December 7th 2024 @ 1900 UTC
by gus 17 Dec '24

17 Dec '24

Dear Relay operators, Save the date! Our next online meetup is happening on Saturday, December 7th, 2024 at 1900 UTC[1]. I'm happy to announce that we'll have a special guest, Ben Collier, joining us to discuss his new book:"Tor: From the Dark Web to the Future of Privacy."[2] (2024) ## Agenda 1. Announcements - New WebTunnel bridges campaign - https://blog.torproject.org/call-for-webtunnel-bridges/ - Upcoming in-person events 2. Ben Collier's book presentation & discussion ## How to join Meetup details: - Room link: https://tor.meet.coop/gus-og0-x74-dzn - Date & Time: Saturday, December 7th, 2024 @ 19.00 UTC - Duration: 60 to 90 minutes - Tor Code of Conduct: https://community.torproject.org/policies/code_of_conduct/ - Registration: No need for a registration or anything else, just use the room link above. The room will open 10 minutes before the meetup starts. ## DON'T MISS SOTO This month, the Tor team was very busy with State of the Onion (SOTO), and I'd like to invite you all to watch the videos: - Community Day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EODNtLqD7f8 - Tor Project Teams update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjPdReNmf_g cheers, Gus [1] If you're confused about UTC and your timezone, @anarcat maintains a cool project called undertime - https://gitlab.com/anarcat/undertime [2] "Tor: From the Dark Web to the Future of Privacy" book is available here: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5761/TorFrom-the-Dark-Web-to-the-… -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead

2 3

install OBFS4
by Keifer Bly 14 Dec '24

14 Dec '24

Hi, So for Debain 12, what is the command to install OBFS4? For my bridge at https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/0E547D99DEB753B20A19EEAA053C… Even though I configured obfs4 in torrc its saying no transport protocols. Thanks. The torrc Nickname udeservefreedom ORPort <hidden> Log notice file /var/tornitces.log/notices.log SocksPort 0 BridgeRelay 1 PublishServerDescriptor bridge BridgeDistribution email ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:<hidden> ExtOrPort auto ExitPolicy reject *:* ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom --Keifer

4 6

Question about WebTunnel bridge
by apfelnymous＠tutanota.de 12 Dec '24

12 Dec '24

Hi, can I run a webtunnel bridge on the same device that already runs a common bridge ? I have 1 bridge relay running 24/7, I could setup another machine for the webtunnel bridge but I can't get another ipv4 . Should I put it down and replace with a webtunnel bridge ? Thoughts ? Cheers

1 0

Tor Relay via Tailscale Funnel?
by Derek Martin 08 Dec '24

08 Dec '24

Long time lurker. Saw the call for more middle relays. I have a large amount of spare capacity on my homeserver and 2.5GB fiber to the house. Is there precedent for running a relay through a Tailscale Funnel? I would need to check to make sure Tailscale TOS was okay with it, but to my ISP, it'd just look like Wireguard traffic. Any thoughts or fools errand?

1 0

ORPort bug is an impediment to running on my servers
by Red Oaive 07 Dec '24

07 Dec '24

Bug 40994 (reported at https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40994) has become a fairly serious impediment to running relays. I generally obtain two ipv4 addresses on my machines and the ports I want to use for tor are not available on both addresses. So listening on 0.0.0.0 is not an option for me. And listening on a specific address incurs the serious problem where NoListen even when not specified seems to be assumed without recourse (see discussion at https://v236xhqtyullodhf26szyjepvkbv6iitrhjgrqj4avaoukebkk6n6syd.onion/t/re…)

1 2

Countering botnet traffic using DNS blocklists
by Imre Jonk 07 Dec '24

07 Dec '24

Hi all, Haven't posted in a while here, it's good to see that this list is still going strong :) I hope that some Tor Project employee can reply on list item 2 below. I've been co-operating an exit relay for some four years now. My usual response to abuse notifications is adding a reject rule to my ExitPolicy that blocks outgoing traffic to the attacked IP address/subnet. I do this mostly to prevent overhead for the volunteer abuse coordinators that operate the network that my exit resides in, but also to "do something" (not much, but at least something) for the attacked network. Yesterday however, I received a notification from my government's proactive security alerting service, notifying me of a botnet using my exit relay for communication. Now, I both like the Tor Project and privacy in general, and at the same time dislike botnets. And this made me think: what if I configure my DNS resolution to block queries for known botnet C&C domains? It would make it a bit harder to abuse the Tor network for botnet communications, and save a bit of bandwidth for users that have a good faith need for anonimity (you know, these users [1]). [1] https://2019.www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en Now, I'm aware there are a couple of downsides to this: 1. Starting to block things could be considered a slippery slope. First it's botnets, then it's piracy, then whatever else the government dislikes. I'm not too worried about this as long as I can choose what I block myself, and I already counter BitTorrent usage by using the well-known ReducedExitPolicy. 2. This old GitLab wiki page [2] lists a relay that is using a censored DNS provider as an example of a bad relay. It however doesn't provide a reason for this. If the DNS provider *only* blocks requests for known C&C domains, would that be okay? [2] https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/trac/-/wikis/doc/ReportingBadRelays#wh… 3. Obviously, the Unbound blocklist source or censoring DNS provider that would be used would gain some control over traffic on the Tor network. I'd say this is a tradeoff. If *only* C&C domains are blocked, I would be okay with this. 4. Potential legal issues. I know that in some jurisdictions (the U.S. I believe is a good example) setting up selective filtering makes the filter operator at least somewhat responsible for the traffic that passes through the filter. I'm not too worried about this at the moment. Both my exit relay and I are situated in the Netherlands. What do you guys think? Do we accept DNS filtering for blocking botnet traffic, or do we all cry censorship over this? Cheers, Imre

1 0