- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Really bad ISP
by Lluís 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

Hello, I am a relay operator in Spain (or at least I try to). I am just desperate with my ISP, he is just leaving the VDSL2 connection down several times a day, taking the relay with it. Does anyone know a much more stable, tor-friendly, ISP for an Spanish user ? The following record of assigned IPs in a **single** day shows the dimension of the drama: 95.23.157.152 - Tue Oct 25 01:00:02 CEST 2016 95.23.156.52 - Tue Oct 25 07:00:02 CEST 2016 95.23.157.180 - Tue Oct 25 11:54:06 CEST 2016 188.79.227.152 - Tue Oct 25 12:20:52 CEST 2016 95.23.155.112 - Tue Oct 25 13:12:30 CEST 2016 95.23.144.75 - Tue Oct 25 13:15:19 CEST 2016 188.77.208.15 - Tue Oct 25 13:29:02 CEST 2016 95.23.159.249 - Tue Oct 25 14:00:06 CEST 2016 95.23.146.89 - Tue Oct 25 14:12:12 CEST 2016 95.23.159.163 - Tue Oct 25 14:19:21 CEST 2016 188.79.238.188 - Tue Oct 25 14:34:55 CEST 2016 188.79.237.90 - Tue Oct 25 14:36:05 CEST 2016 188.79.229.164 - Tue Oct 25 14:57:30 CEST 2016 95.23.149.124 - Tue Oct 25 15:08:51 CEST 2016 188.79.237.0 - Tue Oct 25 15:10:12 CEST 2016 188.77.213.199 - Tue Oct 25 16:28:47 CEST 2016 95.23.153.98 - Tue Oct 25 16:32:50 CEST 2016 95.23.146.46 - Tue Oct 25 16:49:03 CEST 2016 188.79.235.239 - Tue Oct 25 17:10:03 CEST 2016 188.77.215.232 - Tue Oct 25 17:20:03 CEST 2016 95.23.146.36 - Tue Oct 25 17:30:03 CEST 2016 95.23.148.238 - Tue Oct 25 18:10:03 CEST 2016 95.23.149.136 - Tue Oct 25 18:20:03 CEST 2016 188.77.211.53 - Tue Oct 25 18:50:03 CEST 2016 188.77.211.90 - Tue Oct 25 19:30:03 CEST 2016 188.79.225.153 - Tue Oct 25 20:10:01 CEST 2016 95.23.157.171 - Tue Oct 25 21:00:02 CEST 2016 188.77.212.227 - Tue Oct 25 22:00:02 CEST 2016 95.23.157.179 - Tue Oct 25 22:30:02 CEST 2016 Thanks for your assintance, Lluís

3 5

Re: [tor-relays] most (>57% cwfr) of the tor network still vulnerable to CVE-2016-8860 - update your relay!
by Alan 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

0.2.5.12 is the latest version from the repo. Im assuming I should pull down the source and compile it. >> Thanks for the update, my main relay was vulnerable but i've patched it now to 0.2.8.9. >> >> My Raspberry Pi is running 0.2.5.12 -- is that ok? > > If your version is from before 2016-10-17, your relay is vulnerable. > > To be sure you should be running 0.2.8.9. > > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >

4 5

cryptsetup some folders
by Petrusko 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

Hey all, I'm planning to customise a RPi with Raspbian already running, and using cryptsetup (LUKS) to have a partition more secure for some reasons... So the goal is to move some existing sensitive folders to this new encrypted partition. Some sym-links will be used for those directories. About Tor, if I'm not wrong, those directories can be moved to this encrypted partition : /var/lib/tor : so I'm planning to move /var... So at final, planning to move : /home /var /tmp (why not swap file ?) Any suggestions and master's thoughts are welcome :) -- Petrusko EBE23AE5

7 17

Re: [tor-relays] most (>57% cwfr) of the tor network still vulnerable to CVE-2016-8860 - update your relay!
by Alan 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

Thanks for the update, my main relay was vulnerable but i've patched it now to 0.2.8.9. My Raspberry Pi is running 0.2.5.12 -- is that ok? > just a reminder since most of the tor network (including some of the biggest operators) still runs vulnerable relays > > https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-0289-released-important-fixes > > > Since 2/3 directory authorities removed most vulnerable versions from their 'recommended versions' you should see a log entry if you run outdated versions (except if you run 0.2.5.12). > > > It is not possible to reliable determine the exact CW fraction > affected[1] due to the fact that patches were released that didn't increase tor's version number. > Therefore it is also possible that you get log entries even if you run a patched version (IMHO this hasn't been handled in the most professional way). > > > Update instructions > > Debian/Ubuntu > ============== > > make sure you use the Torproject repository: > https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian.html.en > > (you can also use the debian repository but the Torproject's repo will provide you with the latest releases) > > > aptitude update && aptitude install tor > > > CentOS/RHEL/Fedora > =================== > > yum install --enablerepo=epel-testing tor > > > FreeBSD > ============ > > pkg update > pkg upgrade > > OpenBSD > =========== > > pkg_add -u tor > > > Windows > ======== > > No updated binaries available for this platform yet. > > > > > [1] as of 2016-10-25 18:00 (onionoo data) > conservative estimate > ---------------------- > (counts only 0.2.8.9 and 0.2.9.4-alpha as patched) > 31% CW fraction patched > > optimistic estimate > ------------------- > (additionally assumes every non-Windows running 0.2.4.27, 0.2.5.12, 0.2.6.10, 0.2.7.6 that restarted since 2016-10-17 is patched): > 43% CW fraction patched > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >

2 1

33C3 Voucher
by pa011 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

Anybody holding a Voucher for 33C3 in Hamburg at the End of December? More than happy to get hold of it :-) Paul

2 1

Research project - comparing abuse complaints on Tor exits to those of regular ISPs
by dguthrie＠posteo.net 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Hi folks, I am looking to research what proportion of Tor traffic across a Tor exit is "legitimate"/regular internet traffic, by comparing abuse complaints on Tor exits to those of regular ISPs. I think this is an interesting project because it is illegal to analyse traffic on the exit node without amounting to a wiretap, so this is a good way to get some idea about what traffic is comparable to regular internet traffic. I am aware that some people on this list run small ISPs. I am asking a favour that you might be able to send me a sample of abuse complaints over several months, or at least and some idea of how many complaints you recieved. I would need to know what type of complaint they were (torrenting vs more serious complaints), and the volume of traffic that passed through your network. My public key is posted below. Thank you, Duncan Guthrie 4096R/16BD5A5D 425A BEE8 24BB 7665 7FDC F7B6 8767 0301 16BD 5A5D

6 6

Re: [tor-relays] IP address change
by balbea16 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Hi TimTNX for your fast response. I'm afaid, that I have to stay with my current ISP. However, from time to time he keeps my IP address unchanged for up to 4 days. Mike -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: teor <teor2345(a)gmail.com> Datum: 24.10.16 14:34 (GMT+01:00) An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Betreff: Re: [tor-relays] IP address change > On 24 Oct. 2016, at 23:12, balbea16 <balbea16(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi There > My ISP changes my IP address about every 24 hours. It takes 10 minutes until my tor server recognises this, and an hour until all usual connections are reestablished. How can I speed this up? The tor directory authorities vote on relays every hour. There is no way to speed this up. > Does it help to use a DNS? No, Tor uses your IP address. > To pay for a static address is not an option. > Any ideas? Thank you. Mike I'm sorry, this is just how Tor is designed. But you are still contributing to the network. You could try renting a cheap server in a data centre. Most of them offer static IP addresses. Tim T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

IP address change
by balbea16 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Hi There My ISP changes my IP address about every 24 hours. It takes 10 minutes until my tor server recognises this, and an hour until all usual connections are reestablished. How can I speed this up? Does it help to use a DNS? To pay for a static address is not an option. Any ideas? Thank you. Mike

2 1

numtcpsock prevents relay from working properly.
by Nils Erik Flick 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Hi, I am experiencing trouble with a new VPS relay. https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/41F07731207742860D43AC426FBAE2F3947BD… It spontaneously acquired an advertised bandwidth of 2.67MB/s but then started to sputter. Failing because we have 1314 connections already ... Specifically, looking at /proc/user_beancounters numtcpsock is the culprit, which is limited to 1360 (some other processes are using the remaining sockets). This artificial limit causes new connections to fail even though send/receive buffers or CPU usage are well below critical. The value can't be changed from inside the OpenVZ container. That's a pity because traffic appears to be unmetered and a lot of potential is wasted this way. I understand that there is currently no way to limit this inside the Tor process because every relay needs to be ready to connect to every other relay at any time. So I tried to get its consensus weight down. Gradually lowering the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth to 300k caused it to briefly acquire the "Stable" flag and run into trouble again. That's no better than a home connection. Worse, in fact, because the problem persists. I'm curious, is this a common experience? Asking customer service would mean explicitly drawing attention to the fact that I'm trying to use the cheap plan to run Tor nodes. That's completely against my instincts. On the other hand they *did* offer a free-form box in the registration form. Has anyone tried and if so, to any avail? Is there a workaround I'm missing? iptables can be configured freely, but I don't see how that would help. At this point I'll probably call it a day, try elsewhere and set this one up as a bridge instead. Frankly I was a bit surprised that technical snags like this aren't generally mentioned in relay setup guides or FAQs. For all I know, it may be common knowledge among expert sysadmins that OpenVZ should be shunned or whatever, but to someone with little prior experience as a user of commercial hosting, some of these limitations come as a surprise. In a bout of post factum searching, I only found this discussion https://serverfault.com/questions/698845/debian-limit-number-of-tcp-sockets… IMHO this kind of knowledge should be spread more "pro-actively", which is why I'm posting this on a public list. Peace, Erik

2 3

Linux kernel vulnerability
by I 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Dirty COW (CVE-2016-5195) is a privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux Kernel http://dirtycow.ninja/

9 14