tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

Strange behaviour on Atlas output after Key rotation
by Geri 22 Apr '14

22 Apr '14

Good evening all! I just have a question regarding my relay's status on Atlas. Approx. 5 days ago i have rotated all my keys (deleted /keys dir) after Roger's advice for doing so for best security. Since then i am obersing a strange behaviour. From time to time i am checking my relay's status at the Atlas webpage which i have done after the key rotation. But now all my relays are listed twice - other than that also the old relays with the old fingersprints are still listed as "running". Is anybody aware of that strange situation? It seems that on the other Tor Status page (torstatus.rueckgr.at) the new relays are listed correctly. thanks for any advice! Cheers, Geri

2 1

Relay not gettings flags, changing IP
by Niels Hesse 21 Apr '14

21 Apr '14

I updated OpenSSL, removed my keys and restarted the Tor service on my Debian relay. Now I have been running it for 3 days and I still haven't gotten any flags and the relay is not visible in Atlas. Arm keeps saying: "[NOTICE] Our IP Address has changed from 141.101.117.220 to 141.101.116.220; rebuilding descriptor (source: METHOD=RESOLVED HOSTNAME= tor-relay.onlineprivatliv.dk)." Here's a screenshot: http://puu.sh/8hBlM/71bbcb5aff.png I am not sure what is going on here. Do you have any idea? Thanks in advance.

2 1

Announcing the removal of Tor v0.2.2.x relays
by Nusenu 21 Apr '14

21 Apr '14

Hi, as Roger mentioned in a side note [1], tor relays running Tor v0.2.2.x have been removed from the consensus (#11149) [2]. Even if relay operators with ContactInfo were contacted directly I think this information would be worthwhile to be mentioned on tpo's twitter feed and blog. This might increase the likelihood that people still running ancient tor versions get to know about it. (even if people running such old tor versions are unlikely subscribers of either news feed ;) Question arisen from looking at the relays by version graph: If you look at that graph you see that on 2014-04-08 the number of relays (in the consensus) running 0.2.2.x were about zero, and now (2014-04-21) we are back at about 170 v0.2.2.x relays. https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html#versions Why is that? Has the decision postponed/revisited due to the concurrent reduction of relays (heartbleed)? One (fast) v0.2.2.x relay as an example: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/F499B62325DA32EEAA6451ABF0764E096C8CC… [1] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2014-April/004362.html [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/11149 [3] https://twitter.com/torproject

2 2

No Bridges Being Returned by Onionoo
by Matthew Dobbins 21 Apr '14

21 Apr '14

Does anyone know why no bridges are being returned by the Onionoo Service? The summary page (https://onionoo.torproject.org/summary) lists normal relays, but returns an empty bridge list. Also, a detailed bridge query (https://onionoo.torproject.org/details?type=bridge) also returns an empty list. Cheers, mjd

2 1

Sudden drop in number of active relays
by Jesse Victors 20 Apr '14

20 Apr '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hey everyone, I just checked in on https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html and noticed that there's been sudden drops in the number of relays which seems to have caused all other graphs to tank as well. It's too late for this drop to be caused by Heartbleed fixes, so what could explain this? Were these relays banned by the network because they were vulnerable to Heartbleed? Does anyone know what the deal is here? Jesse V. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJTVFMhXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAM/kH/0UrCcJxEAhnAL669KuycKZD gopUNwG/sdC0khwXeQKomqYkE4BZCGgvjkDV8geoqvuSv51HJ6aq42UfaNzlCRqP phFgCZNPdAPQ+8ka4WFmhOuMjZh2V1Ylahzl/NmSXcVyaAhN3SsbhBrk6uk0goCm nHJIYdUayl3sHdPQgdaGGjI+YXqQY1Uv/UIQxXgVPTZuYlf+PuM+lMGIun55Qzvg FHjjwMlY/MUIbka9DupVkmF7q5FaDDeWOpC96JpD1o8MxKoZWDCnFPiAMWRiFNFp WL5Hc5U9pDcg524rxTewJKHv19t6HiNanQMe6o5dsvaqLyaI43X4WrZSNb/TfSQ= =9ZeT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Relay down, "rejected", help
by kbesig 20 Apr '14

20 Apr '14

Relay's up and running using arm , both running as <user>. A big thank you to all who responded with suggestions all of which lead to a successful conclusion!

1 0

VPS suspended for many SSH connections
by I 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

2 1

(no subject)
by John Katakowski 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

Hello Hey since the open ssl was found you folks have been pounding my e-mail box I understand ,anyway can't authenticate my password to unsubscribe for a bit could you send it to my e-mail I have updated my yahoo e-mail password like they said. Sincerely John P. Katakowski.

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] A few questions about my setting up my first Tor relay.
by Nastase G. Eduard 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

I'm researching more on Raspberry and I see its way cheaper to run a relay this way. Won't cost me more the 100ε for a relay that will be self-sustaining. Considering there won't be any monthly expenses (except the internet) the initial investment can be recovered, 24/7 relay and no electricity cost, perfect! Chris Whittleston <csw34(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: >_______________________________________________ >tor-relays mailing list >tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

4 4

"What fraction of the tor network by consensus weight are the openssl-vulnerable relays?"
by Kostas Jakeliunas 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

Making a separate thread so as not to pollute the challenger[1] one. Roger: you wanted to know (times are UTC if anyone cares), [22:08:35] [...] we now have a list of 1000 fingerprints, and we could > pretend those are in the challenge and use our graphing/etc plans on them > [22:08:45] they happen to be the relays vulnerable to our openssl bug > [22:11:43] "what fraction of the tor network by consensus weight are they?" > [22:11:49] "over time" Given them[2], the challenger (with minimal changes to fix downloader and to make Onionoo not falter)[4] will spit out the following results: - http://ravinesmp.com/volatile/challenger-stuff/vuln1024-combined-bandwidth.… - http://ravinesmp.com/volatile/challenger-stuff/vuln1024-combined-weights.js… - http://ravinesmp.com/volatile/challenger-stuff/vuln1024-combined-clients.js… oh, this one's empty. Why is it empty? Didn't look into it.] - http://ravinesmp.com/volatile/challenger-stuff/vuln1024-combined-uptime.json The 'combined-weights.json' is probably the one you might be after. But that's all I did for now. You also said that these aren't all the vulnerable relays that there are out there. You linked to a more complete list[3], but it has some typos, etc. I haven't done anything with it, maybe someone will take over, or I will do something later on. [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2014-April/004214.html [2]: http://ravinesmp.com/volatile/challenger-stuff/vuln_fingerprints.txt [3]: http://freehaven.net/~arma/vulnerable-keys-2014-04-08b [4]: commits: - https://github.com/wfn/challenger/commit/38d88bcb1136f97881f81152d3d883c4e9… - https://github.com/wfn/challenger/commit/39c800643c040474402fc62d2a2db75c25… - https://github.com/wfn/challenger/commit/7425ef6fc00dedf3b2b7f2649e832fb4c9… -- kostas / wfn 0x0e5dce45 @ pgp.mit.edu

2 4

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays