- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Hide TOR exit on my external IP?
by Volker Mink 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

2 2

"Potentially dangerous relay groups"
by nusenu 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

pa011(a)web.de wrote: > there is that list of "potentially_dangerous_relaygroups" you published. > Could yo please emphasize a bit more on what brings a relay on that list, apart from incorrect given MyFamily which doesnt seem to be always the case. > I mean I see quite a few well respected names on that list ? to quote from https://github.com/ornetstats/stats (1) "dangerous" in the sense that a tor client might has a chance to use more than one of these relays in a single circuit (2) these relays are aggregated based on contact information (3) if their groupsize is bigger than their effective family size and they are operated in more than one /16 network block they are listed (4) this list might contain false-positives (contact information is not authenticated) Does that answer your question? I probably should also filter entries where two out of guard_prob, middle_prob and exit_prob are 0 since that means that (1) is never the case - iff onionoo is right about these probabilities.

12 23

log message: [WARN] Failing because we have X connections already.
by David S 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

greetings! i setup a new tor exit server and am seeing this in the log messages: 18:25:01 [WARN] Failing because we have 1352 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance. [11430 similar message(s) suppressed in last 21600 seconds] any ideas why? this is happening on a shared VPS, running ubuntu 16.04 and tor v0.2.8.8. i'm starting to think it's some limitation by the VPS provider. uname -a shows a old kernel (possibly centos 6): Linux km14133-25 2.6.32-042stab113.21 #1 SMP Wed Mar 23 11:05:25 MSK 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux i've made sure tor has enough "max open files" available via limits.conf: # cat /proc/$(pgrep tor)/limits|grep "open files" Max open files 65536 65536 files i'm starting to scratch my head. maybe i should do some intense debugging on this box.. cheers, david

3 3

Strange difference between rx and tx traffic
by pa011 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

On one of my recently started Exits I do see a rather huge and increasing difference between in and out traffic that I don see on any other Exit so far. The rise doesn’t seem to be linear.. Any explanation for that - or can it just be on the back of a not fixed repetitive warning? Sep 27 06:42:46.000 [warn] eventdns: All nameservers have failed Sep 27 06:42:46.000 [notice] eventdns: Nameserver 8.8.8.8:53 is back up Thanks Paul eth0 / daily day rx | tx | total | avg. rate ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- 11.09.2016 539,96 MiB | 88,50 MiB | 628,47 MiB | 59,59 kbit/s 12.09.2016 1,47 GiB | 1,06 GiB | 2,53 GiB | 245,60 kbit/s 13.09.2016 10,03 GiB | 9,86 GiB | 19,89 GiB | 1,93 Mbit/s 14.09.2016 17,35 GiB | 16,69 GiB | 34,04 GiB | 3,30 Mbit/s 15.09.2016 53,11 GiB | 51,59 GiB | 104,70 GiB | 10,17 Mbit/s 16.09.2016 99,08 GiB | 96,87 GiB | 195,96 GiB | 19,03 Mbit/s 17.09.2016 144,45 GiB | 140,66 GiB | 285,12 GiB | 27,68 Mbit/s 18.09.2016 190,05 GiB | 184,50 GiB | 374,55 GiB | 36,36 Mbit/s 19.09.2016 231,95 GiB | 223,90 GiB | 455,86 GiB | 44,26 Mbit/s 20.09.2016 291,30 GiB | 282,25 GiB | 573,55 GiB | 55,69 Mbit/s 21.09.2016 343,19 GiB | 332,33 GiB | 675,52 GiB | 65,59 Mbit/s 22.09.2016 347,57 GiB | 329,66 GiB | 677,22 GiB | 65,75 Mbit/s 23.09.2016 388,91 GiB | 373,21 GiB | 762,13 GiB | 74,00 Mbit/s 24.09.2016 381,35 GiB | 361,64 GiB | 742,99 GiB | 72,14 Mbit/s 25.09.2016 391,60 GiB | 364,34 GiB | 755,94 GiB | 73,39 Mbit/s 26.09.2016 374,59 GiB | 337,81 GiB | 712,40 GiB | 69,17 Mbit/s 27.09.2016 144,06 GiB | 131,67 GiB | 275,73 GiB | 70,89 Mbit/s ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- estimated 382,03 GiB | 349,18 GiB | 731,21 GiB |

4 5

Re: [tor-relays] [OrNetRadar] niftybunny Digital Ocean 2016-09-22
by nusenu 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

Hi Markus, according to your contactinfo observed on the tor network, you run 21 relays, please consider fixing your MyFamily setting, especially because you run non-exit and exits. thanks, nusenu https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan… ornetradar(a)riseup.net wrote: > 2016-09-22 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Up|Ext|JoinTime| IP | CC | ORp | Dirp |Version | ContactInfo | Nickname | eFamlen > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1 | 0 |14:51:30| 188.166.63.113 | nl | 443 | 80 |0.2.8.7 | niftybunny(a)googlemail.com | cairospinymouse | 1 > 1 | 0 |15:07:01| 95.85.45.159 | nl | 443 | 80 |0.2.8.7 | niftybunny(a)googlemail.com | mullahspinymouse | 1 > 1 | 0 |15:24:30| 138.197.129.153 | ca | 443 | 80 |0.2.8.7 | niftybunny(a)googlemail.com | capespinymouse | 1

2 1

New openssl releases
by Nick Mathewson 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

Just a reminder: if you're operating a relay, you should make sure that your operating system is giving you updates for openssl, and you are applying them. There was an update today about bugs in Thursday's OpenSSL releases. For the security advisory, see here: https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160926.txt best wishes, -- Nick

1 0

Arm connection page shown as empty for one particular node
by Ralph Seichter 25 Sep '16

25 Sep '16

Hello, since updating my nodes to Tor 0.2.8.8, the "connections" page of Arm is not showing connections anymore for one exit node running on Gentoo Linux. On a Debian based exit node and on Gentoo based non-exit nodes things work as expected. The affected exit seems to work fine and bandwidth graphs look OK, only the connection list is unexpectedly shown as empty. I tried all listed "resolving utility" options, but that did not help. Any idea on how I might be able to debug/fix this? -Ralph

3 4

Arm phantom keystroke issue.
by Matt Helps 24 Sep '16

24 Sep '16

Hello. The node we run is in our library and we have a raspberry pi SSH'ed into the node and an LCD displaying the output from Arm. Arm is bugging out on a random basis and appears to be receiving a C keystroke that I believe is the clear log command. I ran the pi with no keyboard and I even used another machine to display the ARM output from the SSH session and it did the same thing. Has anyone else seen this and is there a solution? It's a real bummer because we use this as a learning tool in our library and the pretty graphs of incoming and outgoing traffic really get people interested. When this phantom keystroke happens the graphs stop and somebody has to press N on the keyboard to get the pretty graphs rolling again. This can happen in 2-3 hours or upto 12 hours. See pic here. http://imgur.com/a/wrMhT Cheers, Matt

4 3

adding multi-instance service file to Arch Linux's tor package?
by nusenu 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

Dear Arch Linux Tor Package Maintainer, I just filed a new task in Arch Linux's bug tracker, since you are the maintainer of the tor package I wanted to let you know about it (since it does not get auto assigned to you): https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50877 Let me know what you think. thanks, nusenu

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Rampup speed of Exit relay
by D. S. Ljungmark 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

On ons, 2016-09-21 at 17:29 +0200, Aeris wrote: > > > > 17 MBytes/s in each direction. > > From Atlas graph, your node is currently growing up, so wait few > weeks more to > have the real bandwidth consumption, but don’t expect huge change. It looks as if it stabilized a while ago, and I see more fluctuations in between hours of the day, than I see between days. > > 17M*B*ps is 140M*b*ps and you already have a good relay :) > This is around the speed expected for standard CPU (150 to 300Mbps > per Tor > instance, best CPU available can "only" drain around 500Mbps). For a relay, yes. However, on an Exit node, the traffic patterns are quite different than a pure relay, that's why I'm asking here for that. Exit traffic uses a metric ton more, short-lived connections to different parts of the world, and there's a lot of things there that I could probably tune better. ( Normal relays seldom have a trouble filling the conntrac tables, while exits do. ) > > And your CPU have all chance to be the bottleneck at this speed. Tor > is not > multi-core at the moment and so you can’t be able to fully use your > CPU > capacity. For example, if you have a 4-core CPU, don’t expect to have > more > than 0.25-0.3 load with only Tor (1 core fully used). Load is only about IO, processes waiting for something. That's why I quoted CPU usage, and the cpu usage per cpu isn't quite getting there for me. :-( > > You have to start another Tor instance to use a little more your CPU > (1 other > core) and so to drain additionnal 150-300Mbps. Scaling up on more hardware is always an option, but I really want to push the limit of the exit node, as the others won't be exits (Local network design, really) , and exit traffic is always more interesting. //D.S.

4 4