- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Bug Report for 3.1.7 (Debian)
by Sebastian Urbach 22 Sep '17

22 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

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 80, Issue 26
by flipchan 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

https://okservers.net/ doesn't provide vps :/ something like a good ISP that tolerate exit nodes would be good like something in holland maybe? On September 18, 2017 1:50:45 AM GMT+02:00, 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 the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >or, 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: Tolerant hosting for exit node. (King Queen) > 2. Re: Tolerant hosting for exit node. (Alec Larsen) > 3. Re: Tolerant hosting for exit node. (nusenu) > 4. Re: Tolerant hosting for exit node. (nusenu) > 5. Re: Tolerant hosting for exit node. (George) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:59:12 +0100 >From: King Queen <kingqueenits(a)gmail.com> >To: armenian_priest <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> >Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Tolerant hosting for exit node. >Message-ID: <1674967117.20170917195912(a)gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >https://box.cock.li FTW > >yeah it's servers with cocks, but it is in Romania / IP location the >Seychelles, and I have had no issues with my exit node on them. > > > >Sunday, September 17, 2017, 11:32:33 AM, you wrote: > >> Hello list, > >> I was hoping to get a good suggestion from here for a hosting >provider >> that is tolerant with Tor exit nodes. > >> I went through the mailing list archive a few months back and there >> weren't any good suggestions on hosting providers. > >> Also, I checked the 'GoodBadISPs' page in the Tor wiki but it is >pretty >> outdated and I already got burned with one provider from there: >ITLDC, >> it was added on 2016-04-23 but they bluntly stated that they DO NOT >> tolerate exit nodes after 2 abuse complaints, my exit node was >running >> for 1 month there. > >> One of the abuses was handled but with the second one they basically >> wanted me to block HTTP/S traffic on the VPS. > >> I am not sure who edits and keeps track of the mentioned page but it >> would be a good idea to remove the mentioned provider from there so >> other people wont waste their money. > >> Hope to get some recommendations since I want to support the network >> with an exit node. > >> Thanks in advance! > >> With regards, > >> jack > > >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > >-- >Best regards, > King mailto:kingqueenits@gmail.com > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:41:53 +0000 >From: Alec Larsen <aleclarsen42(a)gmail.com> >To: armenian_priest <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> >Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Tolerant hosting for exit node. >Message-ID: > <CANw7z-gfKu72VkdQFL0FfZqCeMqmkqW1C3AaAjLeDcm1tsxHng(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >https://okservers.net/ is newer, but they are Tor friendly, very price >competitive, and allow payment in Bitcoin. > >On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM King Queen <kingqueenits(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >> https://box.cock.li FTW >> >> yeah it's servers with cocks, but it is in Romania / IP location the >> Seychelles, and I have had no issues with my exit node on them. >> >> >> >> Sunday, September 17, 2017, 11:32:33 AM, you wrote: >> >> > Hello list, >> >> > I was hoping to get a good suggestion from here for a hosting >provider >> > that is tolerant with Tor exit nodes. >> >> > I went through the mailing list archive a few months back and there >> > weren't any good suggestions on hosting providers. >> >> > Also, I checked the 'GoodBadISPs' page in the Tor wiki but it is >pretty >> > outdated and I already got burned with one provider from there: >ITLDC, >> > it was added on 2016-04-23 but they bluntly stated that they DO NOT >> > tolerate exit nodes after 2 abuse complaints, my exit node was >running >> > for 1 month there. >> >> > One of the abuses was handled but with the second one they >basically >> > wanted me to block HTTP/S traffic on the VPS. >> >> > I am not sure who edits and keeps track of the mentioned page but >it >> > would be a good idea to remove the mentioned provider from there so >> > other people wont waste their money. >> >> > Hope to get some recommendations since I want to support the >network >> > with an exit node. >> >> > Thanks in advance! >> >> > With regards, >> >> > jack >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > tor-relays mailing list >> > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> King mailto:kingqueenits@gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >> >

4 5

Some Dir Authorities blocked
by Graeme Neilson 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Hi, I am running a relay but 4 out of 8 directory authorities appear to being blocked by my ISP. There is no route to the blocked authorities and the last responding tcp traceroute hop is an ISP machine. There are routes via IPv6 though. Is there anything I can do to get my relay in the consensus? Thanks, G

10 16

A Common Thread: Guard Status
by Kurt Besig 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Just curious and I know it's probably been answered 100x times... I recently updated Tor to an, 'approved version', after 340+ days of up time. Upon restarting the relay, 25 days ago, Ive not been given the 'guard flag' again. Why? Thanks

4 4

Advisory: Stack disclosure in hidden services logs when SafeLogging disabled
by Nick Mathewson 18 Sep '17

18 Sep '17

[TROVE-2017-008. CVE-2017-0380. Severity: medium] Hello! We have found a possible problem with the code that reports an error during the construction of an introduction point circuit. Because of this bug, it is possible that some hidden services will sometimes write sensitive information into their logs. This bug can only happen when the SafeLogging option is disabled, and SafeLogging is enabled by default. If you have not disabled SafeLogging, then you should be fine. We are tracking this bug as TROVE-2017-008 and as ticket #23490. It is also CVE-2017-0380. MITIGATION: 1. If you are not running a hidden service, then you don't need to do anything. This bug does not affect you. 2. If you are running 0.2.5.x, this bug does not affect you: it first appeared in 0.2.7.2-alpha. Other bugs do affect you, though: 0.2.5.x is pretty old! (If you are running 0.2.4, or 0.2.6, or 0.2.7, you should just upgrade. We aren't supporting those releases.) 3. Make sure that you did not change the value of the SafeLogging option in your configuration -- or if you did, that you set it to "1". SafeLogging needs to be turned to "0" or "relay" for this bug to occur. 4. If you did disable SafeLogging, re-enable it: Set it to 1, and use a HUP signal to tell Tor to reload its configuration. 5. If you did disable SafeLogging, you should delete any old logs that were generated with SafeLogging disabled. (You should be regularly removing old logs anyway, as a best security practice.) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We found this when we re-added scan-build's dead assignment checker into the checkers that we run on Tor. Obviously, it's time to make sure that scan-build gets run more frequently. FIX: There are patches for this issue linked from ticket #23490 on our bugtracker. I will be putting out updated releases today. This bug will be fixed in 0.2.8.15, 0.2.9.12, 0.3.0.11, 0.3.1.7, and 0.3.2.1-alpha.

2 2

Tolerant hosting for exit node.
by armenian_priest 17 Sep '17

17 Sep '17

Hello list, I was hoping to get a good suggestion from here for a hosting provider that is tolerant with Tor exit nodes. I went through the mailing list archive a few months back and there weren't any good suggestions on hosting providers. Also, I checked the 'GoodBadISPs' page in the Tor wiki but it is pretty outdated and I already got burned with one provider from there: ITLDC, it was added on 2016-04-23 but they bluntly stated that they DO NOT tolerate exit nodes after 2 abuse complaints, my exit node was running for 1 month there. One of the abuses was handled but with the second one they basically wanted me to block HTTP/S traffic on the VPS. I am not sure who edits and keeps track of the mentioned page but it would be a good idea to remove the mentioned provider from there so other people wont waste their money. Hope to get some recommendations since I want to support the network with an exit node. Thanks in advance! With regards, jack

5 6

Two-step abuse management?
by Moritz Bartl 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Hi! tl;dr: We're thinking about introducing an auto responder to abuse mail which then requires clicking a link or replying to the mail again before the complaint actually reaches a human. What do you think? Can you help us set this up? So far, we do not have any auto responder for abuse mails. I always thought it was important to be friendly and get back to everyone individually, even if at the core we're reusing mail templates. There is a difference if a human gets back to you within a few hours, or you immediately get clearly a auto-sent something that basically tells you there's not much that can be done. But actually, most of what we're seeing is automated notification mail, and lately we also see more and more spam that survives the spamassassin. An ideal system would track used addresses, and only send an auto-response from our end once per sender every few months. We have very limited resources for abuse management, and it would be great to filter out the noise better than we currently do. Did anyone set up an infrastructure like that before? How would you do it? Also, if you just want to help with our abuse management, let me know! We can always use one or two more hands, it's fun, and it teaches you a lot about Tor exit operation. -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/

3 4

Launching a Tor relay with Docker in seconds (x86-64, armhf, arm64)
by Rodrigo Martínez 14 Sep '17

14 Sep '17

Hi all, This is my humble contribution. There are prebuilt images for launching Tor relays for x86-64, armhf and arm64 architectures in seconds. The repo contains scripts for building those images and for launching a relay (bridge, middle or exit). Default configuration is provided for each type. Contributions are welcome. GitHub repo: https://github.com/brunneis/tor-relay-docker Docker Hub repo: https://hub.docker.com/r/brunneis/tor-relay/tags/ Regards, Rodrigo

2 1