- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

interesting tor platform string or tor bug?
by nusenu 08 Jul '16

08 Jul '16

Hi Seongmin, out of curiosity I was wondering whether your so called tor "platform" string ("??B`?\u0001") or your tor relay [1] was generated by a modified tor installation on Windows 8 or if we are looking at some bug in vanilla tor? thanks! [1] https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/21E84B294794821E2898E8ED18402E45E4FC3… descriptor containing that platform string: https://collector.torproject.org/recent/relay-descriptors/server-descriptor…

4 8

AS: "SIGTERM MIKAL VILLA" - Linux (15)
by nusenu 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

Dear sigterm support, thanks for adding relays. In case you are aiming for the exit flag, you will have to add port 80 or 443 to your current exit policy (accept *:6660-6667) because 2 out of 3 ports are required to gain the exit flag, see: https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2216 Should you ever add relays outside your current /16 netblock, please set the MyFamily setting properly. btw: your piwik installation wants to be taken care of https://sigterm.no/ ornetradar(a)riseup.net wrote: > 2016-07-06 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Up|Ext|JoinTime| IP | CC | ORp | Dirp |Version | ContactInfo | Nickname | eFamlen > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 0 | 0 |05:19:24| 193.150.121.140 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | None | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 0 | 0 |05:20:17| 193.150.121.139 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | None | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 0 | 0 |05:21:08| 193.150.121.141 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | None | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 0 | 0 |06:04:26| 193.150.121.133 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | None | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 0 | 0 |07:05:22| 193.150.121.131 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 0 | 0 |07:33:52| 193.150.121.130 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |08:14:46| 193.150.121.131 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |08:46:35| 193.150.121.132 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |08:53:18| 193.150.121.133 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |09:12:50| 193.150.121.134 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |09:36:12| 193.150.121.135 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |10:37:52| 193.150.121.136 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |11:03:56| 193.150.121.130 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |11:13:48| 193.150.121.137 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > 1 | 0 |11:44:06| 193.150.121.138 | no | 9001 | 0 |0.2.5.12 | Sigterm AS darknet server | sigtermsupportsrv | 1 > Fingerprints: > 506088E8CC79AB70A58E47D99D048E4560236B0C,0FFBA0D381CA6E8E2CA444C0F4B86C99BC228FAB,176EC54479BE0A2D700621D897B33B4AA000EE2F,C63EF61EF3615B6B14ACD5972C5EA1DA5BC7857D,D4F93347D639D8AF7A2144C94CD2196F107F4893,E6D022954AE4CA368F67633660165DADDA95C62B,9919526DCACE9B1D117978FD698E160457C9DA56,197B3FC47FD5C8F22929C7076FF0E66815DC044A,798DFE9B219E2CE0E737447EAF388320EACCFE8A,E8F1959686700D522B931255288887F7087643BD,038C5BD680C5101AB0E2E43DFD178FD2B3AACF97,46DDFEACB49429EC6664248223FDEED712E71BBB,010D54F9C9047768E7FA8C835EFC01BCF379106D,799B19EF0F409CF237EA53FC636FA5FCBB779912,662142681939C03F3A17A1D8C6BDA8AF362A5E81 >

1 0

suspicious relays
by yandereson＠riseup.net 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

Hello, I check torstatus/atlas regularly and this was showing up : https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/Relay127001 i just thought i report it here. good day!

15 21

Re: [tor-relays] VPS for Exits
by tor relay 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

> Well, I'm still sticking with CoolHousing/Virtual Server Lite because I hardly ever get abuse > complaints. For ITL, I may leave after my term expires. > But a few other companies I found were: > https://hostmaze.com/ tested it, made really bad experience with them, network performance was almost unusable <10MBit/s lately, they had an outage of 2 days ("because voxility upstream added two new uplinks", than I canceled) > https://blazingfast.io/ made also bad experience with them, like "fatal" said, their network performance isn't the best <20MBit/s (per direction) weekly average If anyone can recommend any other hosters, please come forward.

7 9

Darknet Shenanigans [was: suspicious "Relay127001" relays]
by grarpamp 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

On 7/6/16, Roger Dingledine <arma(a)mit.edu> wrote: > In this > case we actually found these relays misbehaving (accessing onion https://boingboing.net/2016/07/01/researchers-find-over-100-spyi.html http://motherboard.vice.com/read/over-100-snooping-tor-nodes-have-been-spyi… https://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-24/dc-24-speakers.html#Noubir https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-booming-and-opaque-business-of-dark-w… https://motherboard.vice.com/read/dark-web-drug-dealers-are-making-sloppy-m… All quite expected and well known ever since the dawn of overlay networks. Same with the Internet.

4 3

which DirPort should be advertised ?
by Toralf Förster 05 Jul '16

05 Jul '16

3 4

More than one instance with Debian Jessie
by Patrick ZAJDA 04 Jul '16

04 Jul '16

Hi, With Debian Jessie and systemd, we can have multiple instances of Tor. But I cannot find any documentation about how to do that. Can someone tel me where to find some documentation (and not an alternative to have multiple instances). please? Else, can someone explain me how to do that if there is not documentation? Thanks and best regards. -- Patrick ZAJDA

8 30

why are so many OR connections closed with IOERROR ?
by Toralf Förster 02 Jul '16

02 Jul '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I do run a Tor exit relay under a 64 bit hardened Gentoo as OS and do wonder about a Trac issue reported in [1]. About 2/3 of all closed onion connections returns IOERROR instead of DONE as seen using [2]. That's why I'm asking here if other made a similar experience under a different OS ? [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13603 [2] https://github.com/toralf/torutils/blob/master/err.py - -- Toralf PGP: C4EACDDE 0076E94E, OTR: 420E74C8 30246EE7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAld32PcACgkQxOrN3gB26U4B5AD+KiugVV97Fsxe0OdbcSXSl+SX yvdc8IolpZ8WwvInc/sA/1rKZDJ3X2BUCnANQClAKGb8uTPJ3243cVudACOc79kK =3/d+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Thoughts on a meta-package for bridges?
by Nima Fatemi 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

Hello relay operators, I just started a thread about the usability of running different bridges on tor-dev@ and would appreciate some feedback from bridge operators. Though for the sake of better communication, I decided to avoid cross posting and only send it to tor-dev@. This is more of a FYI post to let you know this thread exists: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2016-June/011159.html Looking forward to hear your thoughts on tor-dev mailing list. Best, -- Nima 0X58C4B928A3E218F6 | @mrphs "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" --Evelyn Beatrice Hall

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] [tor-talk] Unrecommended old 0.2.4.x and 0.2.5.x versions
by nusenu 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

(replying on a (more) public list) Roger Dingledine wrote: > I just removed > "0.2.4.23,0.2.4.24,0.2.4.25,0.2.5.8-rc,0.2.5.9-rc,0.2.5.10" > from the set of Tor versions that moria1 recommends as acceptable. glad to see this move and looking forward to the day where 0.2.4.x relays (currently at 7.8% cw) will no longer be included in consensus and all these short lived "default" windows bots disappear with it http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.onion-routing.ornetradar/1452 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.onion-routing.ornetradar/1449

1 0