- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] Opt-In Trial: Fallback Directory Mirrors
by hwertiout695＠Safe-mail.net 15 Apr '16

15 Apr '16

Hi. > TL;DR: Stable non-exit relays can help tor clients use the Tor > network. Please opt-in! My relay is on the list and I want to opt in! eriador 6DE61A6F72C1E5418A66BFED80DFB63E4C77668F

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node
by Fr33d0m4all 15 Apr '16

15 Apr '16

> Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:54:33 +0200 > From: Michael Armbruster <tor(a)armbrust.me> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node (Yawning > Angel) > Message-ID: <5710BA59.5040303(a)armbrust.me> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hi Fr33d0m4All, > > In my opinion, you could use your own tor relay as an entry node, > although you should think about it this way, too: Browsing through the > tor network usually establishes a route through 3 nodes from your side. > Always going through your own relay as an entry node means, only two of > the three nodes are changing each time you establish a new route to a > server. > > In my opinion, you are just moving the "trusted entry node" problem to a > "trusted middle node" problem, although traffic will be more obfuscated > for the middle node because other users could use it over your relay as > well. A think that a bad middle node is not really a big problem, compared to a bad entry or exit node... Furthermore by having at least a fixed trusted node, your own (unless someone compromises it..), you are sure that you don't have any bad circuit, i.e. 3 bad ORs. Then I agree that a list of trusted entry nodes can be better than a single entry node.. But I wait for some comments by people that know the whole picture better than me, which I'm still in the learning process. Thank you very much for your opinion! Fr33d0m4All

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Hiding or masking running tor process..
by rush23＠gmx.net 15 Apr '16

15 Apr '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Yeah k0nsel you got me.. My provider always locks my vps cause I supposed to breach there SLAs running Tor! I tried to explain but they suddenly after years refer to some SLA paragraphs that I disagree with...I terminated my agreement but they won't leave me out before 09/2016 so I always start Tor after unlocking system until locking..looping process😬 Regards Am 15. April 2016 10:07:42 MESZ, schrieb tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org: >Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > tor-relays-owner(a)lists.torproject.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Using your own Relay as Entry Node (fr33d0m4all) > 2. Re: Using your own Relay as Entry Node (Yawning Angel) > 3. Re: Using your own Relay as Entry Node (Tristan) > 4. Re: Using your own Relay as Entry Node > (starlight.2016q1(a)binnacle.cx) > 5. Hiding or masking running tor process.. (rush23(a)gmx.net) > 6. Re: Hiding or masking running tor process.. (dawuud) > 7. Re: Hiding or masking running tor process.. (k0nsl) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:38:15 +0000 >From: fr33d0m4all <fr33d0m4all(a)riseup.net> >To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >Subject: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node >Message-ID: <57100DC7.9080905(a)riseup.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > >Hi, >I've seen some time ago a discussion about using your own Tor Relay as >an Entry Node, but I'd like to have your opinion in the following two >scenarios (if it makes any difference switching from 1 to 2): > >1) You point at your node when you're in the same network where the >node >resides (I mean always by setting EntryNodes in torrc, not by using it >as a SOCKS proxy) > >2) You point at your node from a different network than the one in >which >the relay is > >I think that if your node is being used by others, you would simply be >one of the lots of users passing through it, with the advantage of >removing the risk of a bad Entry node, what do you think about that? > >And about using it as a SOCKS proxy to enter the Tor network? Do the >same considerations apply or is it even worse to use a relay as a SOCKS >proxy? > >I'm sure that I've read about reasons to avoid using your own node, but >I don't remember the considerations about this argument... > >Best regards, > Fr33d0m4All > >-- > >_____________________________________________________________ > > PGP Key: 0DA8 7293 D561 3AEE A3C0 7F63 101F 316A F30E ECB4 > IRC Nick: fr33d0m4all (OFTC & Freenode) >_____________________________________________________________ > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:24:30 +0000 >From: Yawning Angel <yawning(a)schwanenlied.me> >To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node >Message-ID: <20160414222430.78b9255e(a)schwanenlied.me> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:38:15 +0000 >fr33d0m4all <fr33d0m4all(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> And about using it as a SOCKS proxy to enter the Tor network? Do the >> same considerations apply or is it even worse to use a relay as a >> SOCKS proxy? > >This is horrible and should *NEVER* be done, assuming any network not >physically controlled by you is between you and the SOCKS proxy >server[0], simply based on the request (and authentication if you >chose to use such things) being in the clear. > >Regards, > >-- >Yawning Angel > >[0]: So, SOCKS over an internal network to a VM/magical anonymity box >may be ok (depending on your threat model). SOCKS to a VPS somewhere >is essentially always a bad idea. >

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node (Yawning Angel)
by fr33d0m4all 15 Apr '16

15 Apr '16

> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:24:30 +0000 > From: Yawning Angel <yawning(a)schwanenlied.me> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node > Message-ID: <20160414222430.78b9255e(a)schwanenlied.me> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:38:15 +0000 > fr33d0m4all <fr33d0m4all(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> And about using it as a SOCKS proxy to enter the Tor network? Do the >> same considerations apply or is it even worse to use a relay as a >> SOCKS proxy? > > This is horrible and should *NEVER* be done, assuming any network not > physically controlled by you is between you and the SOCKS proxy > server[0], simply based on the request (and authentication if you > chose to use such things) being in the clear. > > Regards, > > -- > Yawning Angel > > [0]: So, SOCKS over an internal network to a VM/magical anonymity box > may be ok (depending on your threat model). SOCKS to a VPS somewhere > is essentially always a bad idea. Hi Yawning, I perfectly understand your point... I'm using it as a SOCSK proxy only within my own LAN, which is only used by me. If I ever need to reach it from the outside I would do it by tunnelink the SOCKS connection within an SSH connection to my LAN. But I'm far more interested in what you think about using your own Tor relay as Entry Node, which I think should decrease the risks because it is for sure a not-bad Entry Node. What do you think about this point? Thank you for the answers. Fr33d0m4All -- _____________________________________________________________ PGP Key: 0DA8 7293 D561 3AEE A3C0 7F63 101F 316A F30E ECB4 IRC Nick: fr33d0m4all (OFTC & Freenode) _____________________________________________________________

2 1

Hiding or masking running tor process..
by rush23＠gmx.net 15 Apr '16

15 Apr '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hey everybody, is there any way to hide running a tor process on a server?? My vps hoster monitors which processes consume most of the resources, so just hiding would be best especially when it looks like a 'not tor' process..😉 I appreciate any helpful hints... Cheers 0x23 - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFhwweDIzIDxydXNoMjNAZ214Lm5ldD4FAlcQgJkACgkQOKD1ON7f MNhrpA/+KH3CXchdIH5ZpXsYe4rDUO2bCAo0lAtZHOogzngmqtJg22Tb9aKnSLBQ sLrtRLHgvGS17Ru3bzSqcSh7SE5vlKi3fFuRqB4f7aWHBreBKLCuOXOsp8YLjf2n f/KZxa0h9lATtjvhG8dKNUVZ7pBEX1awQPO56fkapbArqAg/dKPgggAlmcAhLgO+ 4jjPuk8B+fUlgVtRPaK3Igq4YTyRTkrQmiozM0q7A/4Jj1Sw2Bi8QBoUk1vCOR9y CBbrH7t/kkvts7DhmngjJX6Dc1bPCMkHAAisu+NhUXMVH6SMRrfVzJNR1sgD6BYO oq8J35xYQKCmppLrHRCQ/6YMqDnX27rk3z672AD8EiqZz4uynlrljsNnodmzIzbe eFog7KXaOjIcVH+EUpU1wAXIb0klg3mI9GfA6CYq342xPnNXVoyVqZOTdt3BlZpx rbF6M6ihF1YH2/RQluckCyUkxaO6sG9zPbtCY1LVLvppOHCRjNIPVxJ/pWhBbyQz Q4SH7VSJwS8KVtxa/yZe4sX4+h0lY/Opkg0F20Rsmf4522YCsn2rEYk5VveNj1yd NJ7mHqldfghp4IRROhneLX9tXz2S/hZtcibsWpnuaVC6n83yosAiErSEUbCHHmDI ZCFlfCO1UhvFGFiGanpLez62b1GGn/KHq0BeUzuIpHkXVK6mxRg= =Ovl+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: [tor-relays] Using your own Relay as Entry Node
by starlight.2016q1＠binnacle.cx 15 Apr '16

15 Apr '16

You may find the information in this ticket of interest, particularly the cited comment: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16824#comment:23

1 0

Using your own Relay as Entry Node
by fr33d0m4all 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Hi, I've seen some time ago a discussion about using your own Tor Relay as an Entry Node, but I'd like to have your opinion in the following two scenarios (if it makes any difference switching from 1 to 2): 1) You point at your node when you're in the same network where the node resides (I mean always by setting EntryNodes in torrc, not by using it as a SOCKS proxy) 2) You point at your node from a different network than the one in which the relay is I think that if your node is being used by others, you would simply be one of the lots of users passing through it, with the advantage of removing the risk of a bad Entry node, what do you think about that? And about using it as a SOCKS proxy to enter the Tor network? Do the same considerations apply or is it even worse to use a relay as a SOCKS proxy? I'm sure that I've read about reasons to avoid using your own node, but I don't remember the considerations about this argument... Best regards, Fr33d0m4All -- _____________________________________________________________ PGP Key: 0DA8 7293 D561 3AEE A3C0 7F63 101F 316A F30E ECB4 IRC Nick: fr33d0m4all (OFTC & Freenode) _____________________________________________________________

3 2

First Relay
by KAW 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

Got my first relay running for 4 days now :D -KAW

2 2

Unmetered brandwith hosting
by f4aRelay 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

Which cheap unmetered brandwith hosting do you recommend me, I prefer using bitcoins as method of payment. Thanks Sent from ProtonMail mobile

6 6

Re: [tor-relays] First (positive) experiences with a Tor Relay on Raspberry Pi3
by fr33d0m4all 11 Apr '16

11 Apr '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > From: Yawning Angel <yawning(a)schwanenlied.me> To: > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] First > (positive) experiences with a Tor Relay on Raspberry Pi3 > Message-ID: <20160410182830.2be8c166(a)schwanenlied.me> Content-Type: > text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:52:20 +0000 fr33d0m4all > <fr33d0m4all(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> I've just moved my Tor relay installation from my alix1.c >> embedded system (500Mhz CPU with 256Mb ram) which was able to >> offer only 4Mbps (100% CPU utilization) to a new Raspberry Pi3 >> (quad-core 1.2Ghz 64-bit cpu with 1 GB ram). Some days ago I've >> seen some messages on the ML about Pi2 performance (if I remember >> well) and I'd like to share my first experiences with Pi3. I have >> only 20Mbps connection in the uplink direction, so I'm offering >> about 15Mbps for Tor relay and I've just seen that it is able to >> offer 14Mbps with 40% of a single core utilization.. In >> conclusion, I think that a single relay on Pi3 can offer about >> 30-40 Mbps, and if you run 4 tor relays on the same Pi3 you can >> offer more than 100Mbps which is definitely not bad for such a >> small system. The only drawback is that you need to find a good >> way for keeping it cold, since after 1 hour of 1 core at 100% >> I've reached about 70?C with heatsinks on the CPU. > > If you build tor against OpenSSL 1.1 on that target you will get a > massive increase in performance due to support for the ARMv8 > hardware AES acceleration. > > This requires 0.2.8.x from the maint-028 branch (or master if > you're brave) since I recently fixed tor (again) to compile with > this version of the library, but the changes will be in the next > 0.2.8 release candidate. > > Regards, > Thank you very much Yawning for the news, I didn't know about that! I'm running stable 0.2.7.6 from the Jessie repo, I hope the new ARMv8-AES-enabled version will be out "soon" in the repo (but I don't think it will happen soon, at least for the stable branch, right?) BTW, I can't offer more than 14 Mbps, which are about 75% of my upload BW, so I can live for a while without AES acceleration :) You're work is really appreciated! Best regards, Fr33d0m4All _____________________________________________________________ PGP Key: 0DA8 7293 D561 3AEE A3C0 7F63 101F 316A F30E ECB4 IRC Nick: fr33d0m4all (OFTC & Freenode) _____________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXCsoWAAoJEBAfMWrzDuy05b8P/iHlAaKeVV4kOjujdENZs2Y1 xppzTRALgQcF+f2617j54zVO3gx9p/FkwEgt2ltqqJH8oSpaONBet6BBIrWL60/0 RUG0SYhtLJKAz722ou5XnP18a+ISt6Jq/peZuBxL5SBwjFg8SM1ibIpFpQlqrWNm 108KqF1TLEUEaRL99QO4lXNSDqTgdp0QzOZ3mkuXcorEgSDtcvtfMSwjUyVsGfVS t2JjYiZNGX36o1h0V3cFzN5pcELK/wkXVktxL0GRpJ3bTsoy5yfz+04QG9qFL6SL 4S/AAZ0GWObR+ZaRDY8Fo4X9PVTwN1qLhnXBhknUKeRl0K5u0ANOPvspxt5YpVaj K7Xb3tcVv958QyN6OIGNySUZh2TZ/7zzfgPj8rk4fWpwkZ2TxC0inLqUNTZrxY1W 9jbXTstp8HCWMYJ/aCO220+iyOFGXv0AeBsk5sr+onbkJxccIC4X8pYtm8DeocdZ +q+rIIJ+KcrJNtDLU/7LM4NhzEkTBfDQnFy3Vy5c68I0N39w3tjYyiNx/4JdoX+L vrLcTOZ09Mavfjbrcww27w1Aixlw0HU0aYlY8dHc5fJcHyc/en6Os9GDEGBpXCNh eptNWIlsNxuk9Pbeipb/1GxQt5X2GyAVoITqpBA7u0TO9vr0V+ZvlyY6Thx7qvpy jo2GqAnJQBfruuSD9ZTo =1lbW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3