- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Tor server setup of keys
by potlatch 05 Aug '19

05 Aug '19

I have not installed a Tor relay since the gpg server change. I started a new relay today and found that the instructions for ubuntu Bionic did not work for me. Specifically, url https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/A3C4F0F979CAA22CDBA8F512EE8CBC9E8… | gpg --import gave me an error message that --import is not an option of curl. Has anyone come across this and worked out the problem? -potlatch Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

2 1

New Fallbacks from June 2019
by teor 04 Aug '19

04 Aug '19

Dear Relay Operators, Thanks to everyone who opted-in their relays as fallback directory mirrors. We rebuilt the list of fallbacks in June 2019. [0] The new list will be released in Tor 0.4.1.4-alpha/rc. It was backported to all supported Tor releases. [1] The FallbackDir flags on Consensus Health [2] and Relay Search [3] might take a week or two to update. Don't worry if your relay missed out this time. It's still helping Tor users. And we will rebuild the fallback list again in 6-12 months time. We are tracking future fallback changes in this ticket [4]. To opt-in your relays, add a comment to the ticket [4], or reply to this thread. If you have multiple relays, you can opt-in as many as you like. (We picked up to 7 per operator this time, and we may pick more next time.) T [0]: See: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/tree/src/app/config/fallback_dirs.inc https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28793 [1]: 0.2.9, 0.3.5, 0.4.0, and 0.4.1: See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTor… [2]: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/graphs.html Which uses stem's cached fallback list at: https://gitweb.torproject.org/stem.git/log/stem/cached_fallbacks.cfg [3]: For example, this relay is a new fallback, but its flag isn't shown yet: https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/1211AC1BBB8A1AF7CBA86BCE8689… [4]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/30972

2 2

ORPort // DirPort
by Fabio De Sicot 04 Aug '19

04 Aug '19

Hello everyone I have a problem I wasn't able to fix until now. Could you help me whit this? ------------------------ - when I start tor I receive this error: [...........] Aug 03 09:48:29.000 [notice] Have tried resolving or connecting to address '[scrubbed]' at 3 different places. Giving up. Aug 03 09:48:40.000 [notice] Have tried resolving or connecting to address '[scrubbed]' at 3 different places. Giving up. [...........] Aug 03 10:07:09.000 [warn] Your server () has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. Aug 03 10:07:09.000 [warn] Your server () has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Relays do not publish descriptors until their ORPort and DirPort are reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. - I verified, and ports 9051, 9001 and 9030 were not filtered # firewall-cmd --get-active-zones internal interfaces: eth0 # firewall-cmd --zone=internal --list-allinternal (active) target: default icmp-block-inversion: no interfaces: eth0 sources: ports: 9051/tcp 9051/udp 9001/tcp 9001/udp 9030/tcp 9030/udp protocols: masquerade: no forward-ports: source-ports: icmp-blocks: rich rules: - I checked my torrc file # cat /usr/local/etc/tor/torrcNickname xxxxxx ORPort 9001 <<<< ControlPort 9051 <<<< DirPort 9030 <<<< # # RunAsDaemon 0 ExitRelay 0 CookieAuthentication 1 ContactInfo xxxxxxx - I verified the internal ip # ifconfig eth0eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.0.8 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255 inet6 fe80::1874:3d84:ac42:fa97 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> ether b8:27:eb:90:a2:b8 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 1118761 bytes 398404534 (379.9 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 1095304 bytes 428598871 (408.7 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 - and I verified that on my router the port forwarding was active # Port Forwarding Name Port Range Protocol IP Address Enable TOR 9051 TCP&UDP 192.168.0.8 x ORPORT 9001 TCP&UDP 192.168.0.8 x DIRPORT 9030 TCP&UDP 192.168.0.8 x ------------------------ Thanks in advance Regatds -- Fabio De Sicot # https://fosstodon.org/@jolek78 <https://fosstodon.org/@jolek78>

2 1

Tor relay has low consensus weight
by Piers 04 Aug '19

04 Aug '19

Hi, i have been running a tor relay (link: https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/858BEC79D7355EC0631E98D47CF1…) on a raspberry pi 2 for 15 days, however i think there might be a problem with it. My consensus weight is only 43 and thus the relay doesn't get used much. Please advise if there is an issue -- Many thanks, -Piers

3 2

Unutilized bandwidth
by Alec Larsen 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

Hello, I've only recently joined this list, so I apologise in advance if this is not the appropriate place for my question. For the past month, I have been operating an exit node ( 89094DFA4158C7A1583EC3A332CDCBC74A28CC0E ) from UnitedIX in Chicago, IL, US. The server has a dedicated gigabit port, and I had hoped to be able to relay around 200 TB of traffic per month, but for some reason my advertised bandwidth has been hovering at just 12 MiB/s since the first few days. The server itself is an older Supermicro PfSense server with a Xeon E3-1270v3 at 3.5ghz and 32gb of RAM. It is currently running the latest stable release of FreeBSD (12.0p7) and Tor (0.4.0.5). As far as I can tell, the machine is mostly idle: * The Tor process is the most active, and I've yet to see it go above 5% CPU. * Memory usage is under 1.5gb. * Running `speedtest-cli` (even to different servers using the `--server` option) consistently gives 600mbps+ in both directions to most destinations. * There's nothing interesting in `dmesg` or the debug logs. Does anyone have suggestions for what the bottleneck here might be? I'm happy to share more details about my configuration if that would be helpful. Thank you in advance for any help that you are willing to provide! I think Tor provides a lot of value, and I would like to provide as much bandwidth as I can to the network. -- Alec

6 7

Cherryservers (formerly balticservers) account terminated for exit relay
by Chris Kerr 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

I just heard from the hosting provider cherryservers.com that they are terminating my account (after 2.5 years) where I run the exit relay "ostwaldripening" (46.166.162.53), because they no longer wish to host tor exit nodes. I tried to create an account on trac.torproject.org to edit the "GoodBadISPs" wiki page, but the spam blocking stopped me from doing so.

5 4

Re: [tor-relays] Windows Relay Setup
by William Pate 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

Hi! Well, I certainly expected far more snarky responses. :) Thank you for the links. I'll check them out and, if I get it to work, maybe write up a guide for others. Thank you! William ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, July 14, 2019 1:44 AM, Barton Bruce <barton.bruce(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > William, > > On 7/11/2019 6:58 PM, William Pate wrote: > > > I'm interested in hosting a Windows-based relay, if anyone can point me to a good tutorial. I've tried the most common ones. > > > > tor-relays mailing list > > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > There used to be a VIDALIA (sp?) kit that could simply be downloaded and > run on a windows machine. I then worked for an ISP/CLEC and had lots of > bandwidth so ran Vidaalia on a 64 bit Windows 7 Ultimate machine on my > desk at work. > > I never did hear why something had changed at the tor project so that > stopped working, but do remember a rude snippy condescending reply from > someone on the mailing list so I lost interest. > > I did get the head Tor guy from the Central Square Cambridge office of > TOR to come speak at a local networking group's monthly meeting we held > at a MicroSlush faclity in Burlington, MA and it was well received by a > packed audience. I think he now has left TOR and works for some ISP. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus

4 3

exit operators: overall DNS failure rate above 5% - please check your DNS resolver
by nusenu 30 Jul '19

30 Jul '19

Dear Exit relay operators, first of all thanks for running exit relays! One of the crucial service that you provide in addition to forwarding TCP streams is DNS resolution for tor clients. Exit relays which fail to resolve hostnames are barely useful for tor clients. We noticed that lately the failure rates did increase significantly due to some major exit operators apparently having DNS issues and we would like to urge you to visit Arthur's "Tor Exit DNS Timeouts" page that shows you the DNS error rate for exit relays: https://arthuredelstein.net/exits/ (the page is usually updated once a day) Please consider checking your DNS if your exit relay consistently shows a non zero timeout rate - and make sure you run an up to date tor version. If you are an exit operator but have no (or no working) ContactInfo, please consider updating that field in your torrc so we can reach you if something is wrong with your relay. kind regards nusenu -- https://twitter.com/nusenu_ https://mastodon.social/@nusenu

11 15

Question about Bridges Bandwidth Authority
by s7r 28 Jul '19

28 Jul '19

Hello, I'd like to know more details about how exactly the bridge bandwidth authority works, and if we use the "weight" of each bridge for anything. For example, I have setup 5 obfs4 bridges, with the exact very same hardware resources and all on the same network speed of course. One of them gets used by clients (say 20-50 unique clients every 6 hours or so) while the rest of 4 are not used at all. This usage is not a concern for me, as its known bridges take time until they get used, depending on which bucket they have been assigned and etc. So I assume it's OK at this particular point in their lifetime to be unused by any client. But what I am curious about is, when I search them on RelaySearch, the used one has a measured bandwidth of over 2 MiB/s (and has the fast flag) while other 3 unused ones have bandwidths of between 50 and 60 KiB/s (these also have the fast flag) and there is one last one which is also not used and has a bandwidth of less than 10 KiB/s that does not have the fast flag. (Fast flag missing is also not my problem, I am just mentioning it as a side detail). Now I know for sure those values are not at all in according to the real environment. Each bridge should be at least capable of 3 MiB/s even if all 5 are used at the same time at their full speeds. Actually I have simulated this, it's not just theoretical. Is there anything related to usage, so that the bridge bandwidth authority only measures the used bridges? What could have cause such big discrepancy in my particular case, any ideas? Also, do we use the weight of each bridge in order to determine how much % probability it has to be served to a request in the bucket that is part of, or we don't use bridge weights for anything at all? Thanks!

3 4

Relay authority
by torjoy 26 Jul '19

26 Jul '19

Hi, this is my first post here. I'm running 3 bridges in brazil (maybe one of them becomes a middle-relay), so I want to know what we need here to have some bridge authority for example here in south america. Is too much different from a normal relay? I've already see the "authorithative flags" for torrc but dont made any changes. I think something more should be done and is not so easy. Best regards.

2 3