tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

ORPort is unavailable after a couple of minutes of successful self-testing
by Tachkov Sergey 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

Hello, We have previously set up and adjusted a non-exit node with the following key parameters: ORPort 443 NoListen ORPort 127.0.0.1:4443 NoAdvertise After upgrading tor up to the latest version (0.2.4.21) we started receiving in log the following: Mar 23 11:53:06.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort 1.2.3.4:443 and DirPort 1.2.3.4:9030 are reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) Mar 23 11:53:07.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Mar 23 12:13:06.000 [warn] Your server (1.2.3.4:443) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. Mar 23 12:33:06.000 [warn] Your server (1.2.3.4:443) has not managed to confirm that its ORPort is reachable. Please check your firewalls, ports, address, /etc/hosts file, etc. Firewall and the application which redirects traffic to the 4443 port haven't changed. What may be the cause of that?

2 2

Tor Relay Performance
by Sebastian Urbach 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

Hi, Everytime i speak with colleagues i wonder that the most performance related options for TOR relays are unknown. I just started to write down what i know and i would be happy if someone else could benefit from that. http://key-server.org -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebastian Urbach ---------------------------------------------- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ---------------------------------------------- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat and statesman

5 4

Port 8118 Traffic?
by Dennis Crawford 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

Hello - I just recently installed a Tor Relay and now I'm seeing a TON of port 8118 denied requests in my log. Mar 21 17:24:51 kendra kernel: Firewall: *TCP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=c8:0a:a9:9e:2f:02:00:90:1a:a2:a0:7e:08:00 SRC=162.211.126.188 DST=72.90.68.179 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=122 ID=16300 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=4853 DPT=8118 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 21 17:24:53 kendra kernel: Firewall: *TCP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=c8:0a:a9:9e:2f:02:00:90:1a:a2:a0:7e:08:00 SRC=162.211.126.227 DST=72.90.68.179 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=122 ID=19011 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=1146 DPT=8118 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 21 17:24:55 kendra kernel: Firewall: *TCP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=c8:0a:a9:9e:2f:02:00:90:1a:a2:a0:7e:08:00 SRC=162.211.126.173 DST=72.90.68.179 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=122 ID=28405 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=3137 DPT=8118 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 21 17:24:57 kendra kernel: Firewall: *TCP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=c8:0a:a9:9e:2f:02:00:90:1a:a2:a0:7e:08:00 SRC=216.245.222.105 DST=72.90.68.179 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=56 ID=24995 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=2998 DPT=8118 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 21 17:24:59 kendra kernel: Firewall: *TCP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=c8:0a:a9:9e:2f:02:00:90:1a:a2:a0:7e:08:00 SRC=162.211.126.180 DST=72.90.68.179 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=122 ID=21683 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=3372 DPT=8118 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 21 17:25:01 kendra kernel: Firewall: *TCP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=c8:0a:a9:9e:2f:02:00:90:1a:a2:a0:7e:08:00 SRC=173.234.116.173 DST=72.90.68.179 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=247 ID=9188 PROTO=TCP SPT=1976 DPT=8118 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 I'm not configured at 8118. My config: SocksPort 72.90.68.179:9050 # Bind to this adddress:port too. SocksPolicy accept 72.90.68.176/29 ControlPort 9051 ORPort 9001 DirPort 9030 # what port to advertise for directory connections On my firewall, I'm allowing: TCP_IN: 9030,9001,9050,9051 and TCP_OUT: 9030,9001,9050,9051 Am I doing something wrong? Why am I getting all this 8118 traffic? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Dennis

3 2

Raspberry Pi binary .debs - 0.2.4.21
by Gordon Morehouse 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hello all, I've finally released[1] signed binary .debs for Tor 0.2.4.21 for Raspberry Pi. All the usual "random dude's binaries" apply, but at least these are signed with my PGP key and distributed with hashes. They're really for temporary Pi testing or convenience, be paranoid and build from source following the procedure alluded to in the project README. Check the Cipollini Project README[2] for more information about the (very nascent) project. Best, - -Gordon M. 1. https://github.com/gordon-morehouse/cipollini/tree/master/raspbian_packages… 2. https://github.com/gordon-morehouse/cipollini -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTLg/MAAoJED/jpRoe7/ujO+8H/3c3RJzsYEtWq8/BJcwnW0nP awxBU3Lb0iAt9JNOw7zcdtA6WdC6eIHgKYZ0nH7Vwc4+bHn/RGyvLrD4n11pgB2I eKz2ikQXSWb5jqNQD7sCwQeh5drLxH0VMedOtirpMlqyUteKJOMQfbxmDRA5MBtN KXSSsbKxatnnVA/3/9GFO8oLDEfA0IXp5/RN4bjXDqzW9jHJfC7LVRxq8LK3RRif MYTuzNV3e8CQ9+q5fyqgCBPLA7OBIhH+wVKOVwU/RLlyQTRUqtV9b9Fe7CXXj5eZ YgUgZeNVQZ3gBtSuWWuVHGPu+ZKskSvVKu8Gcj71XCnu6LfI+3DyRWmhCXRU5i4= =yTek -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 7

New obfsproxy release: obfsproxy-0.2.7 [bridge operators: please upgrade!]
by George Kadianakis 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

Hello, a few days after the release of obfsproxy-0.2.6, we spotted a bug where scramblesuit would basically reject clients if they try to connect a second time after a short amount of time has passed [0]. This is a serious correctness bug and bridge operators are advised to upgrade to obfsproxy-0.2.7 as soon as possible (we want to start suggesting scramblesuit to users and we need to make sure that most bridges have already upgraded by then). You can use git master or pip to upgrade to 0.2.7. We have also notified the obfsproxy Debian maintainers and we should soon have obfsproxy-0.2.7 packages ready (we will send an email to this list when they are ready). Furthermore, obfsproxy-0.2.7 clients now support SOCKS5 (thanks Yawning!) and the changes also include a few performance enhancements for obfs3 and scramblesuit. Please upgrade your bridges. Thanks! PS: We will do yet another obfsproxy release soon-ish (probably in the next 2 weeks) which will include some more scramblesuit improvements and other miscellaneous code changes. Again, we will inform you by sending an email to this list. [0]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/11100

8 9

External connections to port 9050
by Greg W 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

I turned on some logging on my firewall today to help troubleshoot and issue and noticed a load of connections from external addresses to port 9050 on my exit node. I don't think that should be publicly accessible. Am I wrong about it being publicly accessible and does anyone else see lots of connection attempts on that port? Thanks, Greg

4 7

Why would consensus weight would be declining like this?
by Tora Tora Tora 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

Declining dramatically https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/90743CFA1B93295B9334CC0C625D22990AABA… vs https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CC2F7C6ED12B67CB3882B98213E02DEF2CB82… that is holding steady

2 3

Exiting only port 8333
by Mike Hearn 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

I would like to be an exit for port 8333 only. I have configured my relay to do this, but I am not being listed with the relay flag and do not see any traffic exiting my node (at least not using arm). I saw an FAQ that says this is because you have to exit web traffic to get marked as an exit. I do not wish to do this. Is there any way to exit just one port?

4 7

Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 38, Issue 27
by Oliver Schönefeld 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

Am 22.03.2014 um 21:04 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. new fingerprint after update (Oliver Sch?nefeld) > 2. Re: new fingerprint after update (Alexander Dietrich) > 3. Re: new fingerprint after update (I) > 4. Re: Relay configuration for FreedomBox (James Valleroy) > 5. Re: new fingerprint after update (Roger Dingledine) > 6. Re: Relay configuration for FreedomBox (Lunar) > 7. Re: Relay configuration for FreedomBox (Lance Hathaway) > > Von: Oliver Schönefeld <oliver.schoenefeld(a)me.com> > Betreff: [tor-relays] new fingerprint after update > Datum: 22 .März 2014 15:26:07 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > Hi guys, > > i updated from Tor 0.2.3.25 (relay 266C0CADC79F802C554019887324A57332A1DA70) to Tor 0.2.4.21 yesterday and the relay fingerprint changed to 07E333A3B979C27739096C5B2EE10D7C8E3D8FFD. > > Is there any way to get the new version working with the old fingerprint? > I looked in the manual and tried adding a DirAuthority line in the torrc file, which looks as the following: > DirAuthority 123tor *:9030 FINGERPRINT > > But then Tor doesn't start. > > I also tried writing the old fingerprint in the fingerprint file, but it's changed to the new one everytime i start Tor. > > > So thanks for your help in advance and have a nice weekend everybody! > > Oli > > > > Von: Alexander Dietrich <alexander(a)dietrich.cx> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] new fingerprint after update > Datum: 22 .März 2014 15:47:29 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > Is it possible that either the "DataDirectory" setting changed due to the update or the directory content? > yes, because vidalia isn't part of the game anymore - yes i'm a little late with the update :( > Best regards, > Alexander > --- > PGP Key: 0xC55A356B | https://dietrich.cx/pgp > > On 2014-03-22 15:26, Oliver Schönefeld wrote: >> Hi guys, >> i updated from Tor 0.2.3.25 (relay >> 266C0CADC79F802C554019887324A57332A1DA70) to Tor 0.2.4.21 yesterday >> and the relay fingerprint changed to >> 07E333A3B979C27739096C5B2EE10D7C8E3D8FFD. >> Is there any way to get the new version working with the old >> fingerprint? >> I looked in the manual and tried adding a DirAuthority line in the >> torrc file, which looks as the following: >> DirAuthority 123tor *:9030 FINGERPRINT >> But then Tor doesn't start. >> I also tried writing the old fingerprint in the fingerprint file, but >> it's changed to the new one everytime i start Tor. >> So thanks for your help in advance and have a nice weekend everybody! >> Oli >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > Von: I <beatthebastards(a)inbox.com> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] new fingerprint after update > Datum: 22 .März 2014 17:58:58 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > ...and the t-shirt counter at Atlas.torproject.org resets > there are worse things than that - but thanks for the reminder to claim it ;) > > Von: James Valleroy <james.valleroy(a)gmail.com> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] Relay configuration for FreedomBox > Datum: 22 .März 2014 19:56:12 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Lance Hathaway <qhltx(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> If you're going to be running these as bridges, it seems to make sense >> to include obfsproxy support, probably with obfs3 and scramblesuit [0] >> enabled right off the bat. > > Thanks for the information. Is it likely that obfs3 and scramblesuit > will be usable in the long-term? Or will they need to be deprecated at > some point like obfs2? > > Also, if obfs3 or scramblesuit were deprecated, but some FreedomBoxes > continued to run those transports, what would be the result? Would the > worst case be that the bridge is no longer usable by some, as in [0]? > > The reason that I'm asking is that FreedomBox is currently working > within Debian "testing" but our target is Debian "stable". Once our > packaged configuration is frozen for the next stable release, it will > be more difficult for us to push changes other than security fixes. > > [0] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10314 > > > > > Von: Roger Dingledine <arma(a)mit.edu> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] new fingerprint after update > Datum: 22 .März 2014 19:57:50 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:26:07PM +0100, Oliver Schönefeld wrote: >> i updated from Tor 0.2.3.25 (relay 266C0CADC79F802C554019887324A57332A1DA70) to Tor 0.2.4.21 yesterday and the relay fingerprint changed to 07E333A3B979C27739096C5B2EE10D7C8E3D8FFD. > > https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#UpgradeOrMove > >> I looked in the manual and tried adding a DirAuthority line in the torrc file, which looks as the following: >> DirAuthority 123tor *:9030 FINGERPRINT >> >> But then Tor doesn't start. > > Yeah, that's not at all what DirAuthority is for. Can you help us > understand what made you think this was a good idea to try, so we can > fix it in the man page? :) > >> I also tried writing the old fingerprint in the fingerprint file, >> but it's changed to the new one everytime i start Tor. > > Hopefully the above faq entry helps. > > Thanks for running a relay! > --Roger > > thank you so much, roger! i copied the old /keys folder and it's working like a charm. i basically ctrl+f'ed "fingerprint" in the stable manual and the DirAuthority property was the only one that made sense, since i don't run a bridge. but i have to admit that i didn't read the NOTE section... shame on my head. thank y'all! > > > > Von: Lunar <lunar(a)torproject.org> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] Relay configuration for FreedomBox > Datum: 22 .März 2014 20:23:49 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > James Valleroy: >> The reason that I'm asking is that FreedomBox is currently working >> within Debian "testing" but our target is Debian "stable". Once our >> packaged configuration is frozen for the next stable release, it will >> be more difficult for us to push changes other than security fixes. > > (Debian hat on:) I try to keep Debian backports as up-to-date as possible. > Are official backports out of your set of allowed packages as well? > > -- > Lunar <lunar(a)torproject.org> > > > > Von: Lance Hathaway <qhltx(a)yahoo.com> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] Relay configuration for FreedomBox > Datum: 22 .März 2014 21:03:43 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > Signierter PGP Teil > On 22/03/2014 11:56 AM, James Valleroy wrote: > > Thanks for the information. Is it likely that obfs3 and > > scramblesuit will be usable in the long-term? Or will they need to > > be deprecated at some point like obfs2? > > > > Also, if obfs3 or scramblesuit were deprecated, but some > > FreedomBoxes continued to run those transports, what would be the > > result? Would the worst case be that the bridge is no longer usable > > by some, as in [0]? > > > > The reason that I'm asking is that FreedomBox is currently working > > within Debian "testing" but our target is Debian "stable". Once > > our packaged configuration is frozen for the next stable release, > > it will be more difficult for us to push changes other than > > security fixes. > > > > [0] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10314 > > I can't speak to whether more pluggable transports will be deprecated > in future, but I'll go out on a limb here and say "probably." The > nature of things ensures that the capabilities of censors continue to > advance. And as they do, new approaches will be found and deployed to > bypass those advancing attempts to block the network. > > When bridges were first deployed, the fact that they weren't all > openly listed in a public directory made them more difficult to block. > Now, most plain bridges are very easy to block. When obfs2 was first > deployed, it was a solid protocol (I have no doubt). These days, China > is actively hunting down and blocking obfs2. There is very little > point to deploying either a plain bridge or an obfs2 pluggable > transport these days, especially on a mass scale. > > On the plus side, obfs3 is still pretty strong, and it's one of the > common pluggable transports right now. Scramblesuit is not live in the > official bundles yet (AFAIK), but it just released and has some pretty > robust-looking defenses against active probing and other attacks. If > you're working on something new to deploy, these should be included, > without a doubt. They may indeed be deprecated in future, and in the > worst case may become unusable or make the bridge more susceptible to > being blocked. But if you go with a plain bridge or obfs2, you're > already in your worst-case scenario. You have nothing to lose and > everything to gain by enabling the newest pluggable transports. > > I would highly recommend adding the Tor package repository to the > FreedomBoxes. As explained in [0], this won't always give you the > latest version of tor, but it will provide security fixes. My hunch is > that it will almost always also be a little fresher than Debian > stable. And given that network censors and network developers are > always going to be in an escalating arms race, enabling new releases > of Tor (and obfsproxy) directly from the project is going to make the > FreedomBox much more useful in the long term. > > -Lance > > [0] https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

"Invalid length on ESTABLISH_RENDEZVOUS."
by Tora Tora Tora 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

I am testing 0.2.5.2-alpha for non-exit relay and seeing lots of "Invalid length on ESTABLISH_RENDEZVOUS" errors. Any cause for concern?

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays