tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

Reducing Exit Node Connections
by Colin 18 Apr '17

18 Apr '17

Hello all, I'm having difficulties running exit nodes on VPS provided by Pulse Servers. Conntrack shows the number of connections climbing to 30,000 and this is untenable (at least for the cheap vps from this provider). I have tried MaxAdvertisedBandwidth at many settings with the same results, number of connections eventually climbs to around 30k. I'm interested in input regarding: * is it possible to reduce the number of connections, how does one achieve this? * given I have no other points of reference, is 30k connections on a typical low-cost VPS unreasonable? * anything else I should be considering? Thanks all. -- Colin

2 1

[warn] circuit_mark_for_close under (Linux 4.4.0-21-generic) Tor 0.2.9.10
by Paul 18 Apr '17

18 Apr '17

[warn] circuit_mark_for_close_(): Bug: Duplicate call to circuit_mark_for_close at ../src/or/onion.c:238 (first at ../src/or/command.c:579) (on Tor 0.2.9.10 ) Can this warning be neglected - I thought it is a BSD and not a Linux issue? Got nearly a hundred of them today - all with the same time stamp. Thanks - Paul

1 0

Some n00b questions about exits
by Mirimir 14 Apr '17

14 Apr '17

I'm thinking about running an IPv6 exit. I've found a Tor-friendly VPS provider, but they have metered bandwidth. And 500GB per month is about my limit. So I could have a 40Mbps/80Mbps exit that was up for maybe a week per month, or a much slower persistently stable exit. For exits, speed is better than persistence, right? Also, I can choose VPS in UK vs DE vs US. Which is needed most? And am I right that a DE exit will generate the least hassle? Thanks.

2 1

snaptor relays: MyFamily update required
by nusenu 08 Apr '17

08 Apr '17

Hi snaptorg, thanks for adding new relays, please do not forget to update your MyFamily. +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+------+ | first_seen | IP | MyFamilyCount | exit | +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+------+ | 2016-11-12 00:00:00 | 213.32.66.192 | 9.0000 | 0 | | 2016-11-26 23:00:00 | 193.70.90.199 | 9.0000 | 0 | | 2016-11-26 23:00:00 | 128.199.108.14 | 9.0000 | 0 | | 2016-11-27 00:00:00 | 139.59.46.211 | 9.0000 | 0 | | 2016-11-28 11:00:00 | 94.156.77.41 | 8.0000 | 1 | | 2016-11-28 14:00:00 | 142.4.206.241 | 9.0000 | 1 | | 2016-11-29 00:00:00 | 185.103.110.210 | 9.0000 | 1 | | 2016-12-03 23:00:00 | 144.217.90.138 | 9.0000 | 0 | | 2016-12-16 15:00:00 | 176.123.26.27 | 8.0000 | 1 | | 2016-12-16 23:00:00 | 193.70.22.86 | NULL | 0 | +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+------+ https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan… regards, nusenu -- https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor

3 9

tor-fw-helper
by Alexander Færøy 07 Apr '17

07 Apr '17

Hello. I'm interested in hearing if anybody on this list is currently using the tor-fw-helper[0] tool in their relay setup? We are currently fixing some issues in Tor's way of doing I/O between subprocesses, but before spending too much time on this task it would be useful to know if this tool is used at all. Cheers, Alex. [0]: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor-fw-helper.git -- Alexander Færøy

2 1

rise in bridges starting with ~2017-03-28
by nusenu 06 Apr '17

06 Apr '17

Hi, I don't know if the discussion of the thread "22% of bridges run by a single entity?" [1] sparked this, but someone was very busy adding lots of obfs4 bridges. Normally you would see <50 new bridges per day, in the last few days we saw >120 new bridges per day. They all run tor 0.2.9.10, support the obfs4 transport and have a nickname that looks like it is generated from a dictionary. https://github.com/nusenu/tor-network-observations/blob/master/2017-03-29_m… You can even see it on metrics: https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html [1] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2017-March/012156.html -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu https://twitter.com/nusenu_

1 0

why my exit is not being used?
by gustavo panizzo (gfa) 06 Apr '17

06 Apr '17

Hello I ran sorrentini [1] as a relay for a month or two and everything was fine. then 2-3 weeks ago i decided to allow exit, the traffic went down significantly, is that expected? it has recovered a bit but i feel the node is underutilized, is it stational? I've attached node's munin graphs [1] https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/5E762A58B1F7FF92E791A1EA4F18695CAC667… here is my torrc # general Nickname sorrentini Log notice syslog ControlPort 9051 HashedControlPassword XXXXXXXXX AccountingStart month 01 00:00 AccountingRule sum AccountingMax 1024GB ContactInfo 0x44BB1BA79F6C6333 <tor-admin AT zumbi dot com dot ar> MyFamily 82C92FBAF2196EC346670D12BB9650FE9FF55741,EFD2EEB91E5C5D8CB999B1EC68D89E51F8776AC7 SocksPort 0 SocksPolicy reject * ## IPv4 ORPort 128.199.76.145:443 DirPort 128.199.76.145:80 Address 128.199.76.145 OutboundBindAddress 128.199.76.145 ##IPv6 IPv6Exit 1 ORPort [2400:6180:0:d0::18a7:d001]:443 OutboundBindAddress [2400:6180:0:d0::18a7:d001] # Exit DirPortFrontPage /etc/tor/tor-exit-notice.html CellStatistics 1 DirReqStatistics 1 EntryStatistics 1 ExitPortStatistics 1 ExtraInfoStatistics 1 HiddenServiceStatistics 1 ExitRelay 1 ExitPolicy accept *:53 # DNS ExitPolicy accept *:80 # HTTP ExitPolicy accept *:110 # POP3 ExitPolicy accept *:143 # IMAP ExitPolicy accept *:220 # IMAP3 ExitPolicy accept *:443 # HTTPS ExitPolicy accept *:873 # rsync ExitPolicy accept *:989-990 # FTPS ExitPolicy accept *:991 # NAS Usenet ExitPolicy accept *:992 # TELNETS ExitPolicy accept *:993 # IMAPS ExitPolicy accept *:995 # POP3S ExitPolicy accept *:1194 # OpenVPN ExitPolicy accept *:1293 # IPSec ExitPolicy accept *:3690 # SVN Subversion ExitPolicy accept *:4321 # RWHOIS ExitPolicy accept *:5222-5223 # XMPP, XMPP SSL ExitPolicy accept *:5228 # Android Market ExitPolicy accept *:9418 # git ExitPolicy accept *:11371 # OpenPGP hkp ExitPolicy accept *:64738 # Mumble ExitPolicy reject *:* # nothing else is allowed -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333 keybase: https://keybase.io/gfa

7 22

visualbasic033 relays: please update 'MyFamily' in your torrc
by nusenu 05 Apr '17

05 Apr '17

Hi visualbasic033, thanks for running relays. Please do not forget to set/update the MyFamily parameter in your torrc configuration to tell clients your relays belong to a single operator, otherwise they might use your relays in multiple positions within a circuit, which is rather bad for their anonymity. If you need help with the MyFamily option let us know. thanks, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu https://twitter.com/nusenu_ https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan… https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor The counter in the last column should match the number of rows: +------------+------+-----------------+-----------+---------------+ | first_seen | exit | IP | nickname | FamilyMembers | +------------+------+-----------------+-----------+---------------+ | 2015-12-04 | 0 | 141.255.166.150 | doutreval | 1 | | 2016-03-07 | 1 | 162.220.246.230 | dlavolos | 1 | | 2016-08-08 | 1 | 91.223.82.156 | sowinetz | 1 | +------------+------+-----------------+-----------+---------------+

1 0

42bpm relays: please update 'MyFamily' in your torrc
by nusenu 05 Apr '17

05 Apr '17

Hi contact42bpm, thanks for adding a new relay. Please do not forget to set/update the MyFamily parameter in your torrc configuration to tell clients your relays belong to a single operator, otherwise they might use your relays in multiple positions within a circuit, which is rather bad for their anonymity. If you need help with the MyFamily option let us know. thanks, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu https://twitter.com/nusenu_ https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan… The counter in the last column should match the number of rows: +------------+------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+ | first_seen | exit | IP | nickname | FamilyMembers | +------------+------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+ | 2016-09-18 | 0 | 92.169.22.209 | RedOctober | 4 | | 2016-12-07 | 0 | 163.172.223.165 | May68 | 4 | | 2017-02-02 | 0 | 62.210.84.34 | 9OfDecember | 4 | | 2017-02-03 | 1 | 94.23.173.249 | 14OfJuly | 4 | | 2017-04-04 | 0 | 62.210.247.178 | 5OfNovember | 1 | +------------+------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+

1 0

Bandwidth Accounting troubles
by Tyler Johnson 02 Apr '17

02 Apr '17

Hello! I've enabled bandwidth accounting on my tor relay, but encountering issues when the relay attempts to wake from hibernation.... Mar 20 23:47:25 tcj Tor[74346]: Bandwidth soft limit reached; commencing hibernation. No new connections will be accepted Mar 20 23:52:30 tcj Tor[74346]: Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 10 days 12:00 hours, with 150 circuits open. I've sent 90.20 GB and received 90.30 GB. We are currently hibernating. Mar 20 23:52:30 tcj Tor[74346]: Circuit handshake stats since last time: 2745/2745 TAP, 15557/15557 NTor. Mar 20 23:52:30 tcj Tor[74346]: Since startup, we have initiated 0 v1 connections, 0 v2 connections, 0 v3 connections, and 113565 v4 connections; and received 1100 v1 connections,130 v2 connections, 41 v3 connections, and 249967 v4 connections. Mar 21 00:00:00 tcj Tor[74346]: Configured hibernation. This interval began at 2017-03-21 00:00:00; the scheduled wake-up time was 2017-03-21 00:00:00; we expect to exhaust our quota for this interval around 2017-03-22 00:00:00; the next interval begins at 2017-03-22 00:00:00 (all times local) Mar 21 00:00:00 tcj Tor[74346]: Hibernation period ended. Resuming normal activity. Mar 21 00:00:00 tcj Tor[74346]: Opening OR listener on 185.92.223.3:8080 Mar 21 00:00:00 tcj Tor[74346]: Could not bind to 185.92.223.3:8080: Address already in use. Is Tor already running? Mar 21 00:01:00 tcj Tor[74346]: Opening OR listener on 185.92.223.3:8080 Mar 21 00:01:00 tcj Tor[74346]: Could not bind to 185.92.223.3:8080: Address already in use. Is Tor already running? Mar 21 00:02:01 tcj Tor[74346]: Opening OR listener on 185.92.223.3:8080 Mar 21 00:02:01 tcj Tor[74346]: Could not bind to 185.92.223.3:8080: Address already in use. Is Tor already running? It will continue in this manner until I manually intervene and restart the relay instance. snippet from torrc: ## Set a maximum of 30 gigabytes each way per period. AccountingMax 30 GBytes ## Each period starts daily at midnight (AccountingMax is per day) AccountingStart day 00:00 ## Required: what port to advertise for incoming Tor connections. ORPort 185.92.223.3:8080 ## The IP address or full DNS name for incoming connections to your ## relay. Leave commented out and Tor will guess. Address 185.92.223.3 ## If you have multiple network interfaces, you can specify one for ## outgoing traffic to use. OutboundBindAddress 185.92.223.3 Tor version and OS: $ tor --version Tor version 0.2.9.10 (git-1f6c8eda0073f464). $ uname -a OpenBSD tcj.me 6.1 GENERIC#224 amd64 Has anyone else experienced this issue? I have only one outbound interface, so is setting the OutboundBindAddress unnecessary and possibly causing the problem? I do apologize if this has been discussed already. Please point me to the relevant post if so! Thanks in advance, Tyler

2 4

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays