- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

"Onionoo seems to serve outdated data"
by tor 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

I see "Onionoo seems to serve outdated data :( Last update was: Tue Oct 24 2017" at the top of Atlas, and querying the Onionoo API directly results in the same outdated data. Anyone working on fixing it?

2 1

Balancing throughput versus getting Black-Holed
by Paul Templeton 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

Hi All, I have a question. I would like to know other peoples experiences for exit nodes and the methods of mitigating getting black holed. I have a node that gets black-holed all the time now - it runs at 18Mibt - 41781FDC57238DAB955DF6D6E8400CEC5ACBE706 I have noticed smaller relays/exits on the same AS don't seem to run into the same problem. I was thinking of running two to three smaller exits at around 4MiBt or just going for a larger faster middle. Thoughs/Comments. I have been emailing the provider and their carrier but know one ever responds/reply's. Paul

4 8

Re: [tor-relays] Troubleshooting rasptor4273 (was: Decline in relays)
by rasptor 4273 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

My IP/ORPORT is 24.132.17.230:9001. My relay is still running. arm shows traffic going through and several circuits on the connections page. And from my notices.log file: Oct 24 16:35:45.000 [notice] Heartbeat: It seems like we are not in the cached consensus. Oct 24 16:35:45.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 6 days 0:00 hours, with 2 circuits open. I've sent 47.17 MB and received 237.75 MB. Oct 24 16:35:45.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 66.463% Oct 24 16:35:45.000 [notice] TLS write overhead: 8% Oct 24 16:35:45.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 0/0 TAP, 0/0 NTor. However there's also a lot of this in that file: Oct 24 16:55:45.000 [warn] Your server (24.132.17.230:9001) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. Oct 24 16:55:45.000 [warn] Your server (24.132.17.230:9030) has not managed to confirm that its DirPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. I added the log line to my torrc and sent a SIGHUP signal. Entries are being added to the log file, so that worked. Regards, Joep On Oct 23, 2017 22:59, "David Goulet" <dgoulet(a)torproject.org> wrote: On 23 Oct (22:49:55), rasptor 4273 wrote: > My relay has gone off the consensus. > Fingerprint: E7FFF8C3D5736AB87215C5DB05620103033E69C3 Interesting. And it is still running as of now without any problems? Can you give me the IP/ORPORT tuple? You think you can add this to your torrc and then HUP your relay (very importatnt to NOT restart it). Log info file <FULL_PATH_TO_LOG_FILE> And then after a some hours (maybe a day), we'll be looking for "Decided to publish new relay descriptor". If it appears, we know that your relay keeps uploading to the directory authorities so thus chances are that there is a problem on the dirauth side not finding you reachable. Thanks! David > Alias: rasptor4273 > Am running Tor 0.2.5.14 on Debian, Raspberry Pi 2B. I upgraded to that > version on September 3rd. > > I grepped through these: > https://collector.torproject.org/archive/relay-descriptors/consensuses/ and > the latest entry I found for my alias is in the file > ./17/2017-09-17-13-00-00-consensus. > > Not sure what other information I can provide. Do let me know if I can do > anything else to help troubleshoot. > > Best, > Joep > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:14 PM, George <george(a)queair.net> wrote: > > > David Goulet: > > > Hello everyone! > > > > > > Since July 2017, there has been a steady decline in relays from ~7k to > > now > > > ~6.5k. This is a bit unusual that is we don't see often such a steady > > behavior > > > of relays going offline (at least that I can remember...). > > > > > > It could certainly be something normal here. However, we shouldn't rule > > out a > > > bug in tor as well. The steadyness of the decline makes me a bit more > > worried > > > than usual. > > > > > > You can see the decline has started around July 2017: > > > > > > https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html?start= > > 2017-06-01&end=2017-10-23 > > > > > > What happened around July in terms of tor release: > > > > > > 2017-06-08 09:35:17 -0400 802d30d9b7 (tag: tor-0.3.0.8) > > > 2017-06-08 09:47:44 -0400 e14006a545 (tag: tor-0.2.5.14) > > > 2017-06-08 09:47:58 -0400 aa89500225 (tag: tor-0.2.9.11) > > > 2017-06-08 09:55:28 -0400 f833164576 (tag: tor-0.2.4.29) > > > 2017-06-08 09:55:58 -0400 21a9e5371d (tag: tor-0.2.6.12) > > > 2017-06-08 09:56:15 -0400 3db01d3b56 (tag: tor-0.2.7.8) > > > 2017-06-08 09:58:36 -0400 64ac28ef5d (tag: tor-0.2.8.14) > > > 2017-06-08 10:15:41 -0400 dc47d936d4 (tag: tor-0.3.1.3-alpha) > > > ... > > > 2017-06-29 16:56:13 -0400 fab91a290d (tag: tor-0.3.1.4-alpha) > > > 2017-06-29 17:03:23 -0400 22b3bf094e (tag: tor-0.3.0.9) > > > ... > > > 2017-08-01 11:33:36 -0400 83389502ee (tag: tor-0.3.1.5-alpha) > > > 2017-08-02 11:50:57 -0400 c33db290a9 (tag: tor-0.3.0.10) > > > > > > Note that on August 1st 2017, 0.2.4, 0.2.6 and 0.2.7 went end of life. > > > > > > That being said, I don't have an easy way to list which relays went > > offline > > > during the decline (since July basically) to see if a common pattern > > emerges. > > > > > > So few things. First, if anyone on this list noticed that their relay > > went off > > > the consensus while still having tor running, it is a good time to > > inform this > > > thread :). > > > > > > Second, anyone could have an idea of what possibly is going on that is > > have > > > one or more theories. Even better, if you have some tooling to try to > > list > > > which relays went offline, that would be _awesome_. > > > > > > Third, knowing what was the state of packaging in > > Debian/Redhat/Ubuntu/... > > > around July could be useful. What if a package in distro X is broken and > > the > > > update have been killing the relays? Or something like that... > > > > > > Last, looking at the dirauth would be a good idea. Basically, when did > > the > > > majority switched to 030 and then 031. Starting in July, what was the > > state of > > > the dirauth version? > > > > > > Any help is very welcome! Again, this decline could be from natural > > cause but > > > for now I just don't want to rule out an issue in tor or packaging. > > > > (Replying to OP since it went OT) > > > > As some of you know, TDP did a little suite of shell scripts based on > > OONI data to look at diversity statistics: > > > > https://torbsd.github.io/oostats.html > > > > With the source here for further tinkering: > > > > https://github.com/torbsd/tdp-onion-stats/ > > > > Maybe something we could look at is "exception reports", which in some > > industries means regular reports that look at anomalies or "exceptions" > > which display out-of-the-ordinary statistics, generally prompting some > > sort of action. > > > > In other words, daily reports would be run on, say, bw consensus by > > country, and if there was some statistically significant change over N > > periods of time, it would be noted. Or if a particular OS drops or > > jumps. Or if a particular AS jumps or declines for relays, bridges, > > whatever. > > > > If done right, a bunch of these reports could point to particular > > changes to the network that need further investigation, and in some > > cases, might quickly point to the related issue. Eg, countryX shutdown > > ISP with a particular AS number, etc. > > > > The more reports coupled with careful optimization over time could > > become an alarm system for Tor network changes, instead of just "er, > > such-and-such distro didnt update their packages then, I just found out > > in git." > > > > Thoughts? > > > > g > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 34A6 0A1F F8EF B465 866F F0C5 5D92 1FD1 ECF6 1682 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -- HiTVizeJUSe9JPvs6jBv/6i8YFvEYY/NZmNhD2UixVY= _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 2

Tor t-shirts
by Vasilis 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Hello, During the last Tor meeting I asked some people about the Tor t-shirt situation and the big delays to processing and response and it seems that the situation has been resolved and person eligible for a t-shirt have either been notified or have already received them. Has everyone eligible for a Tor t-shirt got one already? Are there still people that are still waiting? Thank to everyone running/run Tor relays. Cheers, ~Vasilis -- Fingerprint: 8FD5 CF5F 39FC 03EB B382 7470 5FBF 70B1 D126 0162 Pubkey: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5FBF70B1D1260162

11 17

Just got my first Abuse email :-)
by Paul Templeton 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

It makes me happy but alas it was forwarded to me by the provider and didn't include an email address... so now I can not reply, SIGH Question: this has come from port 22 usage - how important is this port to the general population? Thoughts... Regards, Paul

6 6

Tor 0.3.1.7 - bug report
by diffusae 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

This instance is running forward. Oct 21 00:44:20.989 [notice] Tor 0.3.1.7 (git-6babd3d9ba9318b3) running on FreeBSD with Libevent 2.1.8-stable, OpenSSL 1.0.2j-freebsd, Zlib 1.2.8, Liblzma 5.2.2, and Libzstd 1.3.2. Oct 21 01:08:34.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. Oct 21 01:08:47.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Oct 21 01:09:10.000 [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 0.3.1.7 6babd3d9ba9318b3) Oct 21 01:09:10.000 [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 0.3.1.7 6babd3d9ba9318b3) Oct 21 01:09:10.000 [warn] Bug: Unable to generate backtrace. (on Tor 0.3.1.7 6babd3d9ba9318b3) Regards, --

2 2

"Removed 1565259696 bytes by killing 1 circuits"
by tor 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

In a relay's logs: Oct 20 10:31:47 XXXXX Tor[YYYY]: We're low on memory. Killing circuits with over-long queues. (This behavior is controlled by MaxMemInQueues.) Oct 20 10:32:11 XXXXX Tor[YYYY]: Removed 1565259696 bytes by killing 1 circuits; 40008 circuits remain alive. Also killed 0 non-linked directory connections. Tor removed ~ 1565 MB by killing 1 circuit? Seems like that can't be right? Earlier in the log I see "Based on detected system memory, MaxMemInQueues is set to 1500 MB." So either it's dumping the entire queue here, or the output is misleading. Or perhaps I don't understand how it works. It doesn't seem to be impactful; I'm just curious what's going on.

3 4

AccountingMax 48 GBytes is not working
by Artur Pędziwilk 20 Oct '17

20 Oct '17

Hi Tor operators, I have relay with AccountingMax 48 GBytes AccountingStart day 09:00 MaxMemInQueues 512 ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/local/bin/obfs4proxy managed The accounting seems stopped working since upgrade to tor-0.3.0.10 or enabling obfs4proxy. I am not fully sure, what do you think? https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/DFBF5EA4F70DC6639156BB71593F2A2E8FDA8… Oct 16 09:00:00 venator Tor[3519]: Configured hibernation. This interval began at 2017-10-16 09:00:00; the scheduled wake-up time was 2017-10-16 09:00:00; we expect to exhaust our quota for this interval around 2017-10-17 09:00:00; the next interval begins at 2017-10-17 09:00:00 (all times local) Oct 16 09:00:00 venator Tor[3519]: Hibernation period ended. Resuming normal activity. Oct 16 09:00:00 venator Tor[3519]: Opening Directory listener on 45.76.39.74:8080 Oct 16 09:00:00 venator Tor[3519]: Opening OR listener on 45.76.39.74:9090 Oct 16 09:00:00 venator Tor[3519]: Opening Extended OR listener on 45.76.39.74:46396 Oct 16 09:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 0:46 hours, with 11 circuits open. I've sent 192.00 GB and received 192.01 GB. Oct 16 09:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Heartbeat: Accounting enabled. Sent: 5.42 MB, Received: 6.82 MB, Used: 6.90 MB / 48.00 GB, Rule: max. The current accounting interval ends on 2017-10-17 09:00:00, in 23:13 hours. Oct 16 09:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Average packaged cell fullness: 12.851%. TLS write overhead: 2% Oct 16 09:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 12/12 TAP, 66/66 NTor. Oct 16 09:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 35405 v4 connections; and received 16 v1 connections, 17 v2 connections, 1 v3 connections, and 29675 v4 connections. Oct 16 14:45:03 venator Tor[3519]: Bandwidth soft limit reached; commencing hibernation. No new connections will be accepted Oct 16 14:45:07 venator Tor[3519]: Going dormant. Blowing away remaining connections. Oct 16 15:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 6:46 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 239.99 GB and received 239.98 GB. We are currently hibernating. Oct 16 15:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 27077/27077 TAP, 747536/747536 NTor. Oct 16 15:46:11 venator Tor[3519]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 44017 v4 connections; and received 17 v1 connections, 22 v2 connections, 2 v3 connections, and 37042 v4 connections.

5 7

my relay 'alnsn' died
by Alexander Nasonov 20 Oct '17

20 Oct '17

B9A41AD7AE8B2A4E6DE96EE77E3C8C04BADA8AC0 is currently down because harware died this morning. I will either reinstall it or move to a different AS. In any case, it won't happen tomorrow. I hope to have it up and running on the weekend. Master key is safe because it's on a different machine. Alex

2 1

atlas.cogentco.com Is blocking
by Paul Templeton 19 Oct '17

19 Oct '17

Has anyone come across a scenario where a carrier blocks IP traffic? atlas.cogentco.com is the point which drops any packet to 95.130.9.210 The server is up and running internal monitoring says its OK. The ISP doesn't provide an interface to the Server so I can not log on to do any other validating. Trace routes to any IP with the ISP (active or not)terminates in the ISP's network. Trace route from any point on the planet times out as soon as you hit atlas.cogentco.com Any thoughts... **IPonU could you ping from one of your servers at Digicube please and let me know. Paul

3 4