- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Solicitation for an IPv4 block
by Christopher Sheats 20 Nov '24

20 Nov '24

Hello everyone, In light of Tor Project's push into the global south, I'm bringing on a new advisory board member (https://freeradical.zone/@kedislav) from Chile, and together we're documenting co-location and IP transit costs in the country for a possible Tor exit relay deployment. However, in order to do this, we need some company/university/nonprofit, or some kind person, to donate to us a /24 (or greater) IPv4 block. If said entity is in the USA, it's possible to make this a tax-deductible donation since we are a 501(c)(3). If you could connect me to anyone who might be able to do this for Tor, please feel free to connect me over Signal or email. We can use our existing IPv6 block for dual-stack relays. Or we might get a new ASN and new IPv6 block for that region. If you have any information about Chilean co-location and/or IP transit deals, or contacts, or even good places to get used or new servers, please let me know. I'm hoping that our involvement in the region will help inspire others to do something similar. We'll of course do a full bi-lingual write up like we did in 2017 (https://emeraldonion.org/blog/starting-a-human-rights-isp/) -- Christopher Sheats Director, Emerald Onion Signal: +1 206.739.3390 // emerald.01 Web: https://emeraldonion.org Mastodon: https://digitalcourage.social/@EmeraldOnion

1 0

Journal warnings spam
by Dionysios K. 19 Nov '24

19 Nov '24

Hey guys, Do you have any solution to stop the spam caused by tor: The IPv4 ORPort address 127.0.0.1 does not match the descriptor address <IP>. If you have a static public IPv4 address, use 'Address <IPv4>' and 'OutboundBindAddress <IPv4>'. Indeed I have a static IP but behind nat, so defining it in torrc is not possible as it can't bind to it.

2 2

Re: Looking for a new provider? Try Wedos.
by George Hartley 15 Nov '24

15 Nov '24

First of all, sorry for the late re-post of this e-mail to the list. An individual also active on the tor-relays list messaged regarding a new provider, I recommended one which is not crowded with Tor nodes, but our fellow decided to lie about the provider. Please read their quote. I can still recommend Wedos.cz for Guards/Middle relays, as well as bridges, and if you have very restrictive exit policy, maybe also for exits - however, confirm with staff first, and let them know which ports you want to allow. Also, always reply to all non-automated abuse reports, and forward them to the address for processed abuse reports given to you by staff. This was my original reply: Because their AI chat bot has infinite intelligence right? I know 2 people working there personally, Michal Jakubec and Roman Mondek, and they both reassured me yesterday that Guard/Middle and Bridge are NOT a problem, as long as they stay Guard/Middle or Bridge nodes. Using Tor FROM their network is also no problem.. using Tor to access THEIR is no problem. But, I did not trust their word.. So I tried it myself: No problem accessing the website using around 10 different exit nodes.. Then, I tried to order: Again, no problem! Received bitcoin payment information using a Tor mail service within 10 minutes: This is where I stopped, I did not pay the invoice and e-mailed Wedos stafff to please remove the order. But, Wedos supports Tor, and is a great choice especially for Guards/Middle nodes as well as bridges. Please don't lie about providers.. alternatively, if they still don't support Tor for you, please show the symptoms you are encountering. -GH On Thursday, November 7th, 2024 at 5:11 PM, Red Oaive clearly(a)ivegotyour.pw wrote: > On 2024-11-05 16:32, George Hartley via tor-relays wrote: > > > Also, please consider using a provider that is not overcrowded with > > Tor nodes already like OVH. > > > > I can recommend Wedos.cz ... https://wedos.cz/en/ > > They block access to their web site to Tor users. This doesn't bode well > for how Tor friendly they are. Their chatbot also claims tor is not > allowed: > > "Running Tor relays on a VPS from WEDOS is generally not allowed > due to the potential misuse of such services for attacks" > > Too bad becasue the price you quotes is attractive.

1 0

Re: Update: Tor relays source IPs spoofed to mass-scan port 22
by littlehoster.denote399＠passinbox.com 14 Nov '24

14 Nov '24

Hi, I had very similar reports to [tor-operator_urdn.co](https://forum.torproject.org/u/tor-operator_urdn.co): DateTime Action AttackClass SourceIP Srcport Protocol DestinationIP DestPort 0 30-Oct-2024 14:06:13 BLOCKED attempted-recon 92.51.45.21 0 202.91.162.47 22 1 30-Oct-2024 14:43:35 BLOCKED attempted-recon 92.51.45.21 0 202.91.162.24 22 2 30-Oct-2024 15:11:40 BLOCKED attempted-recon 92.51.45.21 0 202.91.162.24 22 3 30-Oct-2024 15:19:05 DENIED 92.51.45.21 64006 TCP 202.91.162.172 22 4 30-Oct-2024 15:19:20 BLOCKED attempted-recon 92.51.45.21 0 202.91.162.24 225 30-Oct-2024 15:44:49 DENIED 92.51.45.21 18054 TCP 202.91.161.94 22 The report is from the same IP-range.

1 0

Update: Tor relays source IPs spoofed to mass-scan port 22
by gus 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

Hello everyone, I'm writing to share that the origin of the spoofed packets has been identified and successfully shut down today, thanks to the assistance from Andrew Morris at GreyNoise and anonymous contributors. I want to give special thanks to the members of our community who have dedicated their time and efforts to track down the perpetrators of this attack. Although this fake abuse incident had minimal impact on the network -- temporarily taking only a few relays offline -- it has been a frustrating issue for many relay operators. However, I want to reassure everyone that this disruption had no effect on Tor users whatsoever. We're incredibly fortunate to have such a skilled and committed group of relay operators standing with Tor. Thank you all for your resilience, ongoing support and for making the Tor network possible by running relays. Gus -- The Tor Project Community Team Lead

11 18

Re: Raspberry Pi 4
by Keifer Bly 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

Ok thanks all. --Keifer On Thu, Nov 7, 2024, 6:43 AM Michael Wächter via tor-relays < tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> wrote: > Hi all, > I’m running a relay on a Pi 4 now for almost 2 years, almost no issues at > all. Average CPU load 40 %, average bandwidth 5 MB. > Updating to a newer version of tor is a bit tricky. > > Rads > > Michael > > > Am 04.11.2024 um 12:40 schrieb jl2238--- via tor-relays < > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org>: > > It works. My relay is running on a Raspberry Pi 4B with 4 GB RAM. Bandwith > for the relay is 2 Mbit/s, CPU Load of the relay is about 20 % > > > Am 02.11.24 um 02:15 schrieb Keifer Bly: > > Hi, > > So I am wondering, is a Raspberry Pi 4 a recommended device to run a tor > relay on? In terms of traffic load, etc? Thanks. > --Keifer > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing listtor-relays@lists.torproject.orghttps://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >

2 2

Running a middle relay on home network
by Keifer Bly 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

Hi, So wondering for running a middle relay on a raspberry pi esque micro computer, what are the recommed maximum bandwidth for running a middle relay on a hole network (by a stock isp router, etc?)? Thanks. --Keifer

3 2

Tor relays source IPs spoofed to mass-scan port 22?
by Pierre Bourdon 10 Nov '24

10 Nov '24

Hi relay ops, A few hours ago I received a forwarded abuse report from Hetzner for one of my machines running a Tor relay (not exit). Some random ISP was claiming I was sending SSH connections to them, and at first I couldn't find any corroborating evidence in my own network logs and I was ready to dismiss it. But then I noticed that there is in fact something weird: all 4 of my machines running Tor relays are seeing *return* TCP traffic (RSTs or SYN-ACKs) from port 22 from various machines all over the world, at a very low rate. Kind of like someone spoofing source IPs to send SYNs everywhere. I can't figure out at all whether that's actually what's happening and what the intent would be though. Some tcpdumps showing random RSTs coming back to my machines running relays (with no traffic being initiated by said machines beforehand): 04:19:14.705034 IP 198.30.233.69.22 > 172.105.199.155.39998: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 171173954, win 0, length 0 04:20:15.135733 IP 124.198.33.196.22 > 172.105.199.155.23506: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 1985822135, win 0, length 0 04:21:30.222739 IP 223.29.149.158.22 > 172.105.199.155.27507: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 3614869158, win 0, length 0 04:14:25.286063 IP 45.187.212.68.22 > 195.201.9.37.59639: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 41396686, win 0, length 0 04:14:25.291455 IP 107.152.7.33.22 > 195.201.9.37.39793: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 1391844539, win 0, length 0 04:14:25.322255 IP 107.91.78.158.22 > 195.201.9.37.48900: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 1434896088, win 65535, length 0 04:12:39.470366 IP 121.150.242.252.22 > 77.109.152.87.57627: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 2452733863, win 0, length 0 04:13:05.549920 IP 46.188.201.102.22 > 77.109.152.87.9999: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 3253922544, win 0, length 0 04:14:33.027326 IP 1.1.195.62.22 > 77.109.152.87.52448: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 351972505, win 0, length 0 By any chance, any other relay ops seeing the same thing, or am I just going crazy? (it does kind of sound insane...) Any speculation as to the reason for this? Best, -- Pierre Bourdon <delroth(a)gmail.com> Software Engineer @ Zürich, Switzerland https://delroth.net/

26 43

Metrics issue with my relay?
by Carlo P. 10 Nov '24

10 Nov '24

Dear experts, my relay https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/0FBABB8C7B22CEDDFC849331E8E9… is shown as "down since more than three days" in Metrics. The logs on the server however seem to show normal activity: Nov 10 06:45:35 odin Tor[87753]: Heartbeat: It seems like we are not in the cached consensus. Nov 10 06:45:35 odin Tor[87753]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 12:00 hours, with 59518 circuits open. I've sent 69.19 GB and received 71.95 GB. I've received 24885 connections on IPv4 and 524 on IPv6. I've made 326621 connections with IPv4 and 106790 with IPv6. Nov 10 06:45:35 odin Tor[87753]: While not bootstrapping, fetched this many bytes: 10227682 (server descriptor fetch); 6336 (server descriptor upload); 595320 (consensus network-status fetch); 307663 (microdescriptor fetch) Nov 10 06:45:35 odin Tor[87753]: Average packaged cell fullness: 12.651%. TLS write overhead: 2% Nov 10 06:45:35 odin Tor[87753]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 0/0 TAP, 36156/36641 NTor. Nov 10 06:45:35 odin Tor[87753]: Since startup we initiated 0 and received 0 v1 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v2 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v3 connections; initiated 0 and received 0 v4 connections; initiated 61280 and received 25404 v5 connections. What caught my attention is the "seems like we are not in the cached consensus" log statement and also the Platform "Tor 0.4.8.13 on FreeBSD (version is 0.4.8.12 in consensus)" on Metrics While being shown as "down" in Metrics, the stats continue to be updated and config changes like 'MaxAdvertisedBandwidth' are properly reflected in Metrics Is there some issue with Metrics in conjunction with FreeBSD ? On the OS, the only changes were automated OS updates. Thanks for your feedback Regards, C. -- Sent with https://mailfence.com Secure and private email

1 0

Fwd: [Abuse #KMLTFQPGVQ] Abusive use of your service vps-3e661acc.vps.ovh.net
by Keifer Bly 09 Nov '24

09 Nov '24

Just got this note, I run a middle relay on ovh. Why would this suddenly happen? Thanks. Relay is usdeserveprivacy --Keifer ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <ticket+KMLTFQPGVQ.ca83(a)abuse.ovh.net> Date: Sat, Nov 2, 2024, 9:07 PM Subject: [Abuse #KMLTFQPGVQ] Abusive use of your service vps-3e661acc.vps.ovh.net To: <keifer.bly(a)gmail.com> Hello, An abusive behaviour (Intrusion) originating from your VPS vps-3e661acc[.]vps[.]ovh[.]net has been reported to or noticed by our Abuse Team. Technical details showing the aforementioned problem follow : -- start of the technical details -- <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head> <body><pre> Greetings Fellow Sys Ad/s I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out to you today regarding a matter of potential concern involving one or more IP addresses associated with your system Our network security logs have recently detected unusual activity originating from these IP addresses. While we understand that such incidents can sometimes occur innocently, it's crucial to investigate and address them promptly to ensure the security of all networks involved To assist you in understanding the situation, we have provided the relevant log data below, with timestamps adjusted to our GMT &#43;8 timezone: DateTime Action AttackClass SourceIP Srcport Protocol DestinationIP DestPort 0 01-Nov-2024 05:07:55 DENIED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 44959 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]97 22 1 01-Nov-2024 05:24:37 DENIED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 58734 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]98 22 2 01-Nov-2024 08:48:23 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 8551 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 3 01-Nov-2024 08:53:27 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 2419 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]169 22 4 01-Nov-2024 08:58:05 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 5917 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 5 01-Nov-2024 08:59:24 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 56858 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 6 01-Nov-2024 09:04:23 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 32161 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]169 22 7 01-Nov-2024 09:17:30 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 33472 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 8 01-Nov-2024 09:18:02 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 11282 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 9 01-Nov-2024 09:19:00 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 3727 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 10 01-Nov-2024 09:20:31 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 4388 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]169 22 11 01-Nov-2024 09:25:57 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6898 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]165 22 12 01-Nov-2024 09:32:06 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 18202 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 13 01-Nov-2024 09:39:40 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 51142 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 14 01-Nov-2024 09:45:32 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 46914 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 15 01-Nov-2024 10:40:48 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 60991 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 16 01-Nov-2024 10:42:58 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 42833 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 17 01-Nov-2024 10:47:13 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 38382 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 18 01-Nov-2024 10:47:23 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 30596 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 19 01-Nov-2024 10:47:46 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 56767 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 20 01-Nov-2024 10:52:10 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 8983 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 21 01-Nov-2024 10:55:04 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 55684 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 22 01-Nov-2024 10:57:43 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 37003 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 23 01-Nov-2024 10:58:43 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 10524 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 24 01-Nov-2024 11:01:06 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6384 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 25 01-Nov-2024 11:03:46 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6779 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 26 01-Nov-2024 11:06:05 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 23062 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 27 01-Nov-2024 11:58:01 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 33174 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 28 01-Nov-2024 11:58:05 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 29422 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 29 01-Nov-2024 11:58:26 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 53504 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 30 01-Nov-2024 12:00:03 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 5898 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 31 01-Nov-2024 12:00:20 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 38324 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 32 01-Nov-2024 12:00:30 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6362 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 33 01-Nov-2024 12:03:11 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 38581 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 34 01-Nov-2024 12:05:37 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 43932 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 35 01-Nov-2024 12:07:27 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 5141 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 36 01-Nov-2024 12:08:42 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 56161 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 37 01-Nov-2024 12:12:26 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6269 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 38 01-Nov-2024 12:14:33 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 164 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 39 01-Nov-2024 12:15:48 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 25787 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 40 01-Nov-2024 12:16:39 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 9188 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 41 01-Nov-2024 12:16:58 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 32317 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 42 01-Nov-2024 12:22:28 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 21955 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 43 01-Nov-2024 12:29:50 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 33563 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 44 01-Nov-2024 12:32:18 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 48519 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 45 01-Nov-2024 12:33:24 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 42914 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 46 01-Nov-2024 12:34:07 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 11296 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 47 01-Nov-2024 12:36:43 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6522 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 48 01-Nov-2024 12:37:55 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 57962 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 49 01-Nov-2024 12:37:56 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 53189 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 50 01-Nov-2024 12:39:29 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 7411 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 51 01-Nov-2024 12:41:51 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 27413 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 52 01-Nov-2024 12:44:00 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 355 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]181 22 53 01-Nov-2024 12:50:35 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 28953 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 54 01-Nov-2024 12:50:53 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 46927 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 55 01-Nov-2024 12:52:00 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 45122 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 56 01-Nov-2024 12:55:04 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 4184 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]181 22 57 01-Nov-2024 12:55:15 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 33245 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]185 22 58 01-Nov-2024 12:57:38 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 50897 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 59 01-Nov-2024 12:58:58 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 35903 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 60 01-Nov-2024 12:59:35 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 16158 TCP 192[.]168[.]200[.]216 22 61 01-Nov-2024 13:01:40 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 18404 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]181 22 62 01-Nov-2024 13:04:12 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 32885 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]181 22 63 01-Nov-2024 13:05:50 BLOCKED 51[.]68[.]197[.]220 6316 TCP 202[.]91[.]161[.]132 22 We believe that by working together to resolve this matter swiftly, we can help safeguard the integrity of our networks and prevent any further issues. If you require any additional information or support from our end to facilitate your investigation, please don't hesitate to reach out. Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. We value your expertise and cooperation in resolving this situation effectively. Thank you for your time and consideration. For any corrections/updates, kindly email email-removed@provider [.]com</pre></body></html> -- end of the technical details -- Your should investigate and fix this problem, as it constitutes a violation to our terms of service. Please answer to this e-mail indicating which measures you've taken to stop the abusive behaviour. Cordially, The OVHcloud Trust & Safety team.

5 6