- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] My VPS relay has just been hacked
by Libertas 26 Oct '14

26 Oct '14

For what it's worth, there's an operational security document on the Tor wiki: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/OperationalSecurity However, that document covers more advanced techniques mostly intended for serious attackers such as government agencies. Others have already mentioned to you the simplest options, which should keep you safe from automated botnet hackers. These include: allow only public key authentication on SSH, use fail2ban or sshguard, update frequently, and don't run anything unnecessary (a torrent client, an HTTP/FTP server). Some relevant links: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SSH/OpenSSH/Keys (if you're only going to read/do one thing, make it this) https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/index.en.html#cont… -Libertas

1 0

Note: 0.2.3 is deprecated
by Nick Mathewson 25 Oct '14

25 Oct '14

And please forgive me or sending one more email, please let me call your attention to these bits of the Tor 0.2.5.10 release notes: This release marks end-of-life for Tor 0.2.3.x; those Tor versions have accumulated many known flaws; everyone should upgrade. o Deprecated versions: - Tor 0.2.3.x has reached end-of-life; it has received no patches or attention for some while. If you're still running Tor 0.2.3 on a relay, I'd strongly suggest you upgrade to 0.2.4, or to 0.2.5 as soon as it's available for your operating system. If there's some issue that prevents you from running a more recent version of Tor, please let us know soon so that we can try to address it before 0.2.3 becomes totally obsolete and gets rejected from the network. best wishes, and thanks for running relays! -- Nick

1 0

Oniontip
by Sebastian Urbach 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

Dear list members, Since i was the One who asked to put Oniontip on the tor-website (donate section), what is the current discussion status ? -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ----------------------------------------- Definition of TOR: 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain and 100% reason to remember the name! -----------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Unstable router
by humbletoruser＠Safe-mail.net 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Hello, thank you all for your suggestions. From: Julien ROBIN <julien.robin28(a)free.fr> > Take another well known product from well known trademarks > Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, Sitecom, TP-Link, or something compatible with OpenWRT for example. Okay, I'm going to try a new router. I don't use VoIP or TV-Services. Just a Tor Node and a hidden Service.

1 0

If you've ever run one of the Tor Browser default bridges...
by isis 21 Oct '14

21 Oct '14

...then please have a look at #13504: https://bugs.torproject.org/13504 Thanks! -- ♥Ⓐ isis agora lovecruft _________________________________________________________ OpenPGP: 4096R/0A6A58A14B5946ABDE18E207A3ADB67A2CDB8B35 Current Keys: https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/isis.txt

1 0

Advisory: remote DoS when using Tor with recent OpenSSL versions built with the "no-ssl3" option.
by Nick Mathewson 21 Oct '14

21 Oct '14

Hello, relay operators! There's one important bugfix in the 0.2.5.9-rc release that relay operators should know about. If you have a version of OpenSSL that came out last week (like 1.0.1j, 1.0.0, ) and if your version of openssl is built with the "no-ssl3" flag, then it's possible to crash your Tor relay remotely if you don't upgrade to 0.2.5.9-rc or to 0.2.4.25 (when that's out). This appears to be an OpenSSL bug. The Tor releases in question contain a workaround for it. To tell if your version of openssl was built with 'no-ssl3': run "openssl s_client -ssl3 -connect www.torproject.org:443". If it gives you an output beginning with something like: CONNECTED(00000003) 140632971298688:error:14094410:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert handshake failure:s3_pkt.c:1257:SSL alert number 40 140632971298688:error:1409E0E5:SSL routines:SSL3_WRITE_BYTES:ssl handshake failure:s3_pkt.c:596: then you're fine and you don't need to upgrade Tor on your relay. But if it says something that starts like: unknown option -ssl3 usage: s_client args then you need to upgrade your Tor. === Some questions and answers: Q: Does this affect clients? A: No. Only relays. Q: Does this affect me if I'm running a version of OpenSSL other than 1.0.1j, 1.0.0o, or 0.9.8zc? A: No. Only those versions. Q: Does this affect me if I'm running a version of OpenSSL configured without the "no-ssl3" option? A: No. Only versions that were built with the "no-ssl3" option are affected. Q: Does the openssl team know? A: Yes. Have a look at this thread. http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=141357408522028&w=2 . Also, before I saw that thread, I informed them the other day. Q: Does this affect Tor packages? A: I don't think that we shipped any packages where we used the "no-ssl3" flag to diable ssl3. So only if you're using OpenSSL from another source (say, your operating system) will you be affected. Q: What can I do to remediate this problem? A: You can upgrade to the most recent Tor, or you can use a version of OpenSSL built without the "no-ssl3" flag. Downgrading your OpenSSL is not recommended. Q: What is the potential impact of this bug? A: If a relay is affected by this bug, anybody can make the relay exit remotely. It does not enable any data leaks or remote code execution. Still, the ability to selectively disable relays might enable a sophisticated attacker to do some kinds of traffic analysis more efficiently. So, fix your relay if it's affected. Q: Should we run in circles and freak out? A: Not this time. We should just make sure we fix affected relays. Q: Hey, Nick, you didn't explain this properly! A: Please send a follow-up message that explains it better. :) best wishes, -- Nick

1 1

tor-relays on Nokia N900
by Franklin 20 Oct '14

20 Oct '14

Hi How to set tor-relays on Nokia N900?

1 0

Anonbox Project
by Sven Reissmann 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Hi there, I recently read about the anonbox project [1], a small hardware-router, which allows end-users to connect their whole LAN to the Tor network. The project is on kickstarter at the moment [2]. Has there already been a discussion on how this might affect the performance of the Tor network? Regards, Sven. [1] http://anonabox.com [2] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/augustgermar/anonabox-a-tor-hardware-r… -- PGP Key: https://0x80.io/pub/files/key.asc PGP Key Fingerprint: 2DF2 79CD 48DD 4D38 F0B6 7557 2E68 D557 49AA 1D99 Note: I'll be transitioning away from this key in the near future.

15 20

Re: [tor-relays] Few questions about relaying
by teor 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Unless you have a specific need to debug tor (hint: you don't), you should remove this line to improve security: DisableDebuggerAttachment 0 And please consider adjusting these lines rather than removing them: RelayBandwidthBurst 25 MBytes RelayBandwidthRate 20 MBytes We've found that relays perform best when given a rate slightly under the capacity of the link. teor pgp 0xABFED1AC hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ https://gist.github.com/teor2345/d033b8ce0a99adbc89c5 http://0bin.net/paste/Mu92kPyphK0bqmbA#Zvt3gzMrSCAwDN6GKsUk7Q8G-eG+Y+BLpe7w… On 12 Oct 2014, at 01:22 , tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org wrote: > Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:21:51 +0300 > From: s7r <s7r(a)sky-ip.org> > To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Few questions about relaying > Message-ID: <54393CFF.5030903(a)sky-ip.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Signed PGP part > RelayBandwidthBurst 15 MBytes > RelayBandwidthRate 3 MBytes > ContactInfo QuebecFibe(a)gmail.com - 200Mb dedicated relay > ControlPort 9052 > CookieAuthentication 1 > DataDirectory /home/blaise/.arm/tor_data > DirPort 9030 > DisableDebuggerAttachment 0 > ExitPolicy reject *:* > Log notice file /home/blaise/.arm/tor_log > Nickname QuebecFibe > ORPort 27645 > RunAsDaemon 1 > > > Use this. You are using the latest Tor? > > > On 10/11/2014 5:11 PM, Blaise Gagnon wrote: > > http://pastebin.com/DQ4k7Fzz > > > > 2014-10-11 10:06 GMT-04:00 s7r <s7r(a)sky-ip.org > > <mailto:s7r@sky-ip.org>>: > > > > Can you please copy/paste your entire torrc to a pastebin and > > provide us the link? > > > > It is hibernating only if you use accounting. Provide us your > > entire complete torrc and we will correct it for you if you don't > > have traffic limits on your server. > > > > On 10/11/2014 4:54 PM, Blaise Gagnon wrote: > >> after a few hours, still hibernating, and still wondering why I > >> lost Stable, Guard and Named all at the same time (see atlas > >> graph)... weird. > > > >> 2014-10-11 6:03 GMT-04:00 Blaise Gagnon <quebecfibe(a)gmail.com > >> <mailto:quebecfibe@gmail.com> <mailto:quebecfibe@gmail.com > >> <mailto:quebecfibe@gmail.com>>>: > > > >> no reason for my node to be hibernating, no caps... > > > >> 2014-10-11 3:31 GMT-04:00 Lunar <lunar(a)torproject.org > >> <mailto:lunar@torproject.org> <mailto:lunar@torproject.org > >> <mailto:lunar@torproject.org>>>: > > > >> Blaise Gagnon: > >>> and ... what is "hibernating" ? > > > >> See AccountingMax and related options in tor manpage: > > > >> AccountingMax N > >> bytes|KBytes|MBytes|GBytes|KBits|MBits|GBits|TBytes Never send > >> more than the specified number of bytes in a given accounting > >> period, or receive more than that number in the period. For > >> example, with AccountingMax set to 1 GByte, a server could send > >> 900 MBytes and receive 800 MBytes and continue running. It will > >> only hibernate once one of the two reaches 1 GByte. When the > >> number of bytes gets low, Tor will stop accepting new connections > >> and circuits. When the number of bytes is exhausted, Tor will > >> hibernate until some time in the next accounting period. To > >> prevent all servers from waking at the same time, Tor will also > >> wait until a random point in each period before waking up. If you > >> have bandwidth cost issues, enabling hibernation is preferable to > >> setting a low bandwidth, since it provides users with a > >> collection of fast servers that are up some of the time, which is > >> more useful than a set of slow servers that are always > >> "available". > > > >> -- Lunar <lunar(a)torproject.org <mailto:lunar@torproject.org> > > <mailto:lunar@torproject.org <mailto:lunar@torproject.org>>> > > > >> _______________________________________________ tor-relays > >> mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > >> <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> > >> <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > > <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>> > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ tor-relays > >> mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > >> <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> > >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing > > list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing > > list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > -- > s7r > PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11 > PGP Pubkey: http://www.sky-ip.org/s7r@sky-ip.org.asc >

2 1

Unstable router
by humbletoruser＠Safe-mail.net 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Hello guys, I'm hosting a tor relay at home. My router is a Fritz-Box (this one: http://avm.de/service/fritzbox/fritzbox-7362-sl/uebersicht/ ) and the internet connections is really unstable. Frequently the connection breaks. Not only to the internet, also the local network is down till the router reboots. Is there a better solution for routing a DSL connection? A better router or a way to replace the router with the computer running the tor node. Any hint is appreciated. Thanks in advance! Another question: If I'm acessing my side through a .onion address theres no need for ssl/https as the traffic is encrypted anyways, right?

4 3