tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

>18k 'Machiavelli' bridges added since 2017-09-02 (>4k currently running = 64% of bridges)
by nusenu 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

Hi, do you know anything about >18k Machiavelli named bridges that have been added in the last few days? (>4k currently running) thanks, nusenu properties: OS: Linux tor version: 0.3.0.10 transports: obfs4 https://twitter.com/nusenu_/status/905580044503969792 new bridges per first_seen date: [...] | 2017-09-02 13:43:33 | 1 | < usual rate | 2017-09-02 14:43:33 | 2 | | 2017-09-02 15:43:33 | 1 | | 2017-09-02 17:43:33 | 1 | | 2017-09-02 18:43:33 | 1360 | < Machiavelli bridges start here | 2017-09-02 19:43:33 | 667 | | 2017-09-02 20:43:33 | 196 | | 2017-09-02 21:43:33 | 184 | | 2017-09-02 22:43:33 | 196 | | 2017-09-02 23:43:33 | 189 | | 2017-09-03 00:43:33 | 196 | [...] | 2017-09-06 18:43:33 | 152 | | 2017-09-06 19:43:33 | 149 | | 2017-09-06 20:43:33 | 148 | +---------------------+----------+ First Machiavelli named bridge (running in the last 7 days) appeared on 2016-11-28 00:41:02 -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu https://twitter.com/nusenu_

3 3

Accounting logic
by r1610091651 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

Hi I'm on version 0.3.1.7 on Linux. I've following config entries: AccountingMax 1639 GBytes AccountingStart month 24 00:00 Today I've discovered following log entries: Sep 24 00:00:00.000 [notice] Configured hibernation. This interval began at 2017-09-24 00:00:00; the scheduled wake-up time is 2017 -09-28 16:44:28; we expect to exhaust our quota for this interval around 2017-10-21 20:52:28; the next interval begins at 2017-10-24 00:00:00 (all times local) Sep 24 00:00:01.000 [notice] Commencing hibernation. We will wake up at 2017-09-28 16:44:28 local time. Sep 24 00:00:01.000 [notice] Going dormant. Blowing away remaining connections. For context, Tor did not exceed previous quota and was operating normally before 24 september 00:00. To me this is not what I would have expected as behaviour given the config. My exception is that the tor would reset counters at month end/beginning and continue operation. Is it a bug? Thanks Sebastian

2 2

update installation guide please
by I 24 Sep '17

24 Sep '17

2 1

bad exit flag reason
by nusenu 24 Sep '17

24 Sep '17

Hi, [1] is not maintained since a long time. I'm curious what the reason for assigning the badexit flag to [2] was. If you know anything about it and can share something, that would be great. thanks, nusenu [2] https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/flag:badexit 37.221.171.234 75FCEA0BE7A2A472669352A1F0F2E59F99C6A3AA 37.221.171.237 128814837EC27F20D76EBDDB2CB3AB70258F0BA8 [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/badRelays -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu https://twitter.com/nusenu_

3 3

bug messages in my relay's notices.log
by Scott Bennett 23 Sep '17

23 Sep '17

I've gotten a couple of these sets of messages in the last few hours. Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] tor_bug_occurred_: Bug: src/common/compress.c:576: tor_compress_process: Non-fatal assertion !((rv == TOR_COMPRESS_OK) && *in_len == in_len_orig && *out_len == out_len_orig) failed. (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: Non-fatal assertion !((rv == TOR_COMPRESS_OK) && *in_len == in_len_orig && *out_len == out_len_orig) failed in tor_compress_process at src/common/compress.c:576. Stack trace: (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x11a63fc <tor_bug_occurred_+268> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x11abbd4 <tor_compress_process+228> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x11ab0fa <tor_compress+554> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x11ab540 <tor_uncompress+64> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x114ecfd <connection_dir_reached_eof+1773> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x1126c43 <connection_handle_read+3027> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x106db94 <connection_add_impl+532> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x1c1e8564e <event_base_assert_ok_nolock_+3102> at /usr/local/lib/libevent-2.1.so.6 (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x1c1e80a1e <event_base_loop+1310> at /usr/local/lib/libevent-2.1.so.6 (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x106fa55 <do_main_loop+1413> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x1071e89 <tor_main+233> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x106d899 <main+25> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) Sep 22 05:13:17.366 [warn] Bug: 0x106d791 <_start+417> at /usr/local/bin/tor (on Tor 0.3.1.6-rc efc306c59aa9ee1a) My outdated system is running FreeBSD 10.3-STABLE. I've never seen these messages before that I can remember. What causes them? What, if anything, should I do about them? And what fallout do they cause for users? Thanks in advance for any relevant information! Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at sdf.org *xor* bennett at freeshell.org * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************

3 5

tor on tails
by TorGate 23 Sep '17

23 Sep '17

Hi, can i setup a tor server with tails ? I planing 4 new tor servers TorGate1,2,3,4 . Is this a god ide ? Steffen

2 1

abuse email for non-exit relay (masergy)
by relay 000 23 Sep '17

23 Sep '17

FYI, I got this email for a non-exit relay - please share if you get them as well: To Whom it May Concern, You have a system on your network that is actively scanning and/or attacking external sites on the Internet. This can come from many sources and because it is often difficult to detect this activity, we are sending this E-mail in an attempt to help you solve the problem. We have detected your system with an IP of, <relay-IP>, scanning a client we monitor. This was not a short attack but a prolonged scan and/or probe that was designed to find and intrude into the target network. This may be someone on your network who is actively trying to hack others. This person may be a legitimate user on your network or it may be that this system has been compromised and is being used by someone to hack others. It is also likely that the system is running automated tools that have been installed to perform these actions without any human intervention. Below is the information about the attack. Keep in mind that the source IP of our client has been sanitized for anonymity. Date: 09/XX/2017 Time Zone: America/Chicago Source(s): relay-IP Type of Attack/Scan: Generic Hosts: <RFC1918 IP address> Log: relay-IP:ORPort > RFC1918 IP address Possible Cause: Thank you for your attention to this matter, Masergy email: esp(a)masergy.com mailto:esp@masergy.com ---------------

6 10

Bug Report for 3.1.7 (Debian)
by Sebastian Urbach 23 Sep '17

23 Sep '17

Good Morning, I just updated my Exit to 3.1.7 (Debian) a few hours ago and found this: [warn] tor_bug_occurred_(): Bug: ../src/common/compress.c 576: Sep 22 15:01:46.000 [warn] Bug: Non-fatal assertion !((rv == TOR_COMPRESS_OK) && *iSep 22 15:01:46.000 [warn] Bug: /usr/bin/tor(log_backtrace+0x43) [0x560c022013eSep 22 15:01:46.000 [warn] Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_bug_occurred_+0xb9) [0x560c022Sep 22 15:01:46.000 [warn] Bug: /usr/bin/tor(tor_compress_process+0x135) [0x560Sep 22 15:01:46.000 [warn] Bug: /usr/bin/tor(+0x18e715) [0x560c02223715] (on To 1Help 2Wrap 3Quit 4Hex 5Goto 6 7Search 8Raw 9Format 10Quit Please contact me for further information if needed. -- Sincerely yours / M.f.G. / Sincères salutations Sebastian Urbach --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

3 2

FallbackDirectoryMirrors selection criteria "uptime"
by Martin Kepplinger 22 Sep '17

22 Sep '17

hi, Fallback directory mirrors [1] seem to be selected (if the need should arise, according to release planning and whatnot) with criteria "uptime", among others. And it's only this criteria I'm thinking about here: Now, in the wiki we have advice on how to improve relay security, and among many, there is advice to wipe the master key / identity every 1-2 years [2]. Fallback directory mirrors are *selected* based on uptime, and *expected* to stay up, of course, for about at least 2 years. This somehow encourages to keep your identity forever. That's a contradiction and it might end up in *not* selecting relays, whos operators care a lot about security. thanks martin [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/FallbackDirectoryMirrors [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorRelaySecurity#Vector1:…

2 2

Horizons Relay Figerprint
by Kurt Besig 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

E65D300F11E1DB12C534B0146BDAB6972F1A8A48

3 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays