- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] Hits againast GFC hex--string fingerprint in IPTables yesterday
by tor＠t-3.net 09 Jul '14

09 Jul '14

This has happened again, to the same node. The 4 hits came between approx. 16:39:57 and 16:40:27 EST on July 8. 4 offending IPs, one hit each: 1.50.251.122, 210.72.140.17, 119.4.5.55, 115.200.236.120 (they are all from China, per Apnic). They hit against the same hex-string rule as before.

1 0

Setting up relay on fedora
by Joker Hacker 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

I would like to setup tor relay on my fedora box it runs 16 to 18hrs a day.' Could you please point appropriate links or videos? - Thanks

2 1

Reliable way to gauge tor throttling?
by jason＠icetor.is 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

What would be a good method to determine if tor traffic is being throttled on a exit relay vs normal internet traffic? -J

2 1

CPU usage
by kingqueen 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

Hi, I'm running a Tor relay on a low cost dedicated server. The tor relay is named kingqueen and it's running on an Intel Atom N2700 dual core hyperthreaded CPU with 2gb of memory, in a data centre with a symmetric 100mbps connection. I have found as time goes on and usage of my relay increases (about 3 weeks now) that the Tor process is increasingly using more of the CPU. TOP shows Tor using over 100% of CPU and the load average is 2 or more. I use the dedi for other, less intensive things (OpenVPN, seedbox, also Owncloud though this falls over). I know that this is sub-optimal and ideally the dedi should be for the relay alone. I was wondering if the CPU usage is standard. I guess it could be, given it has decryption work to be done? Is it high? Is there anything I can do to lower it, other than rate limiting, which I don't want to do? Thank you

7 11

different torrc and fingerprint when rebooted
by Kali Tor 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

Hi all, When I installed tor for the first on an Ubuntu machine, ran it when logged in as normal user "tor" using the /etc/tor/torrc. However today I had to reboot the node and when it came back ps showed that it was using a different torrc /usr/sbin/tor --defaults-torrc /usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush IN addition, it seem to be running with a different/new fingerprint! The content of /usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc is: DataDirectory /var/lib/tor PidFile /var/run/tor/tor.pid RunAsDaemon 1 User debian-tor ControlSocket /var/run/tor/control ControlSocketsGroupWritable 1 CookieAuthentication 1 CookieAuthFileGroupReadable 1 CookieAuthFile /var/run/tor/control.authcookie Log notice file /var/log/tor/log Could it be due to the different "User" that I have a new fingerprint? How do I make sure that the next time I reboot I use the correct torrc at /etc/tor/torrc and the correct fingerprint? Thanks, -kali-

1 1

Re: [tor-relays] Trying Trusted Tor Traceroutes
by Sebastian Urbach 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

Dear Renke, Dear list-members, Yes, the TTTT project is alive. Thank you for asking and for your ongoing support. Yes the repo was updated but it is not ready for review yet. We are making changes for the next traceroute round and will ask for testing / testers as soon as it is ready. There is also being worked on a reverse traceroute and we had people at the last tor-dev meeting as well who are trying to figure out what step to do next. Regarding your comment on "Dynamic download of relay IPs". It's just downloading the current list of relay IP instead of using a static list. I don't see any harm in that as one of the participant in the past pointed out to use the latest IPs anyway. Theres a lot of work to do with limited human resources, please stay tuned. We will be back ;-) Hi Sebestian, > Just a quick update regarding the TTTT project. There are multiple GB's > of data to analyse and it is still being worked on. We are also working > on the public script(s) as well. is your project still on-going? I'm asking because your score board was not updated since May (except one test(?) upload in the phase foo-foo) and though the repository updates are interesting (dynamic download of relay ips) they were never approved for usage according to your installation notes. Renke ---------- _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] UK Exit Node
by Thomas White 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael, First of all thank you for running an exit. I run a large series of exits in the Netherlands (https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=Chandler&filters[country]=nl) and I am a UK citizen. Having experienced many troubles, including server seizures, I decided to move the servers to a jurisdiction I am not living in or plan on living in as if there is legal trouble, you want to put up as many layers as protection as you can. That means even if my node in NL is seized and I could face a conviction (theoretically), because it is not illegal in the UK there is nothing that the government can do to force me over there under the concept of dual-criminality. Furthermore, running a Tor exit at a residential address is a very, very bad idea. I speak from experience here after encountering UK police already and their version of "knock and greet" is at 4am with the door taken off when they don't realise it is an exit node. You want to separate your traffic from that of your exits wherever possible because assuming you were asked in court if you ever used your own exit, it would be conceivable that ANY traffic from that exit server COULD have been yours if you've used or were on the same IP as it. This is of course not the case if you don't use the same IP/residence for your personal traffic. Also, on the topic of blacklisting IPs I find it a bad idea both morally and legally. Most believe morals would dictate blocking child porn/peer to peer is a good act, but this is the same guise governments have used to overextend their reach and so I don't block any traffic regardless of how questionable it is. The second reason is because of your legal liability in the UK as my solicitor has advised me; by blocking one set of IP's you are then accepting control to filter and moderate the traffic of your servers and therefore you don't have the same (full set of) safe-harbor provisions protecting you. It then becomes a trivial matter for law enforcement to come to you and order you block more sites without a court order. So overall, freedom of speech and the right to read are inherently against the idea of blocking content merely because the overwhelming majority of people believe it should be blocked. Freedom isn't free if it isn't totally free. - -Tom On 06/07/2014 08:51, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Michael Banks <c(a)starbs.net> > wrote: > >> The block lists are very limited, i.e P2P, lists of known >> blackhats/paedophiles, unallocated IP ranges and most >> importantly: government-owned address and anti-tor addresses > > > True, and I agree with your definition of malicious. > > My concern is that it is not either my place, or yours, to define > what is good or bad for the Random User to visit, _IF_ we are > offering a Tor relay. Our intentions in using this list, in > particular, are not relevant. After all, the Govt of China also > claims to be shielding its users from known bad guys. > > We are against such censorship, so why should we add our own > blocks, without warning, without anyway for the user to even know > we have such a block? > > > > _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing > list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTuZIYAAoJEE2uQiaesOsL0ycQAKn1kFwjLMVAEvQ8v3hQUvOl dFzDhDLHR+SMUO+K6M8PvwsKHVB1og3jN4UN4hYvzGJl1qOsOhMGaWp6uvAxwJJJ JqjwyCnpHSTdYH2LKVjtKz3o/W00TDl8fJxXt5AfmDNUX9M/MsHieq7U6KPpKWyy K8U0xAxrLyFzaaFVVHjotZzRoCg67IMiLPXx/l6QurD+MCwNG7DWf+aMAgjxTQvJ 5OFQ938hmhAe7bXEkz0uc3zg5C36GOlif42Z7s3kqNMbP//yBBzSnV1dCtggGNqt F/IRMcK8TKkBecC5IlW3E3rHh1lcXH6VmkSKYC6/2KTkYlhdkROM8blGbt4P3kkf EHKmSa6kN0/iwUTdNsoY/duu2P96bWpZ69WFywf95WqRq6I/pwBMs2crN/QQWJ0t qu67OAIb4daBccBtf4XSq5S9W9KWej7cE6tdyoxBxBZlSTkmEljdhtLr5qkahtdL SEVHdY8ko4bFOBNMjZxGl8HKQbE2UlCiF3ErK8IyRGeLBwUlB29OlinaoJrewXud CHrkrNEXrDjePcUerz74Y7sRgtv2yOSKBhF4L/1kVV/govvysz3TuLQjmU9e1rQf alHm4wvRF18Lodlp+AnlKTlmVCP9cklTAsfNVb/TCOyjRmQewHXJd0JFdXpBQD8J x12SnIhToKOq0Q/iQOCF =doV0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

UK Exit Node
by Michael Banks 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

Any tips for UK Exit Node operators on a Residential ISP (BT)? Running a reduced exit policy, informed various teams at the ISP, running PeerGuardian on the server in question (blocking P2P/kiddyporn/hacking related IPs), have a hostname setup tor-relay.itschip.com, planning to leave the thing running 24/7 So far, it's been live on and off (ironing out issues) for the past few days and it's transferred well in excess of 300GB already. Looks like I'm one of the fastest Exit Nodes in the UK c:

6 11

Relay not making connections.
by Lluís 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

After reading the documentation and related FAQs I got my TOR relay installed and configured. It is listed in Atlas with the running, V2Dir and valid flags for more than 5 days. However, it receives almost no connections and the following notice appears frequently in the logs: [notice] No circuits are opened. Relaxed timeout for circuit 1331 (a Testing circuit 3-hop circuit in state doing handshakes with channel state open) to 60000ms. However, it appears the circuit has timed out anyway. 6 guards are live. [7 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3600 seconds] Can anyone point me over the right track ? Thanks, Lluis

2 2

Trying Trusted Tor Traceroutes
by Sebastian Urbach 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

Dear list members, Just a quick update regarding the TTTT project. There are multiple GB's of data to analyse and it is still being worked on. We are also working on the public script(s) as well. Thanks for your ongoing support ! -- 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

2 1