- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

rejected hit from China
by Larry Brandt 03 Jul '14

03 Jul '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Today my router blocked two hits from Chinese server 218.77.79.43:59762 to my 68.66.154.214:21. I don't listen to port 21. I don't listen to 21. Should I take some action? Is this normal or academic or...? glowworm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtMqbAAoJEGtidykNvjCmS+AH/353bFiZs8tJ+3iUwCPARUOj 9stR4/Hhq+vCk9NCnaYYJ/rQn3d0ZQW8SaZXmxzaqsTe+8eioy9n8sAELLEe9xMe VMenA5tYMkjIl08V7PW3v05S7Ap631BtTuO2TXeCickmz0frcDnEHVHAbfklFNLZ h67U/uAN2OYp1iu6++IBBoZOTpU6dAsDpRUGZofS9gWpNdqWB5En3hzaoCS2hEXT sG6N/mkExMBbmQri3pp02KIakOx8OzYi3Nl+ByxDHIqtmLEmu+3+clEEpYlSI6yN 3je75ek+e42HLVSepvLXhfA8rDQabl3TjGOq+VXdDZNwPWntBfpnfkwBhp+TnQk= =/PSG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Why is UFW bllocking allowed TOR traffic?
by Jeff Odell 03 Jul '14

03 Jul '14

I was monitoring UFW today and noticed that it was periodically blocking allowed TOR traffic. any ideas why from those with more experience than I? toradmin@IrvineTorExit:~$ sudo ufw status Status: active To Action From -- ------ ---- 22 ALLOW Anywhere 9001/tcp ALLOW Anywhere 9030/tcp ALLOW Anywhere 80 ALLOW Anywhere 22 (v6) ALLOW Anywhere (v6) 9001/tcp (v6) ALLOW Anywhere (v6) 9030/tcp (v6) ALLOW Anywhere (v6) 80 (v6) ALLOW Anywhere (v6) toradmin@IrvineTorExit:~$ sudo tail -f /var/log/syslog | grep DPT=9001 Jun 22 15:38:12 IrvineTorExit kernel: [ 2159.246977] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=04:01:1b:5e:9a:01:28:8a:1c:64:cf:f0:08:00 SRC=92.108.200.200 DST=188.226.199.250 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=120 ID=10392 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52000 DPT=9001 WINDOW=16652 RES=0x00 ACK URGP=0 Jun 22 15:38:12 IrvineTorExit kernel: [ 2159.246988] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=04:01:1b:5e:9a:01:28:8a:1c:64:cf:f0:08:00 SRC=92.108.200.200 DST=188.226.199.250 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=120 ID=10396 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52000 DPT=9001 WINDOW=16652 RES=0x00 ACK URGP=0 Regards, Jeff

3 2

FYI: Tor-Ops Meeting in Vienna
by MacLemon 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

Hoi! Yes, this is a crosspost of tor-talk, please be gentle. There will be a Tor-ops meeting on Thursday, 2014-07-03, 19:00 at the Metalab[0] in Vienna/Austria. The meeting was planned way before the recent rulings in Austria became known but they will be discussed for certain. The actual purpose of the meeting shall be to finally found a Torservers.at organisation (German word: Verein) in Austria that works on running nodes in the public interest as well as exchange know-how and best practice on running relays, bridges and exits. So in case you're in Vienna, please join! Best regards MacLemon [0]: http://metalab.at/wiki/Lage "How to get to Metalab"

4 4

Bandwidth usage for an established relay node
by Kali Tor 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

Hi all, Curious as to how much bandwidth a stable, well established relay node will chew through in a month on an average? Anyone has any figures? -kali-

3 3

optimize performance of a relay running on a VM
by s7r 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have multiple relays running on the following systems: - - vmware vsphere virtualization technology - - 100 mbps port - - 1GB dedicated RAM - - 2.6 Ghz 1 core CPU dedicated - - OS: FreeBSD 10.0 Release amd64 or Debian Stable - - DO NOT KNOW IF I HAVE AES-NI SUPPORT OR HOW TO ACTIVATE IT (?) Currently atlas shows 3-4-5 MB/s advertised bandwidth for these relays. Arm shows between 600 and 1200 concurrent circuits (total of inbound, outbound and exit) and average traffic consumption is 5-6 TB per month (total both download and upload). I think this can be improved, but how? The servers have only purpose Tor, there is nothing else running on them and there is no bandwidth cap or throttling. Suggestions? Thanks in advance. - -- s7r PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTswH9AAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRtTMH/jFV2FdfSksYNalSn9fmHcRk sKoWfNuRL/FQAQ1R0faN0F3lemOfDq80vosmd95h5EIZG7UmmN/xs9s8K9PQAzxf j3XHwCtYVkKkEA1djdAbFUB5s3WN6ieNm0qnnqZeBk16A9vJeRI2wkYFPRaDn6c5 n9u+p5QUjRmBKMkY/TOZ12TWSdeD683SoGdx4O5FeP90B+Q61SFgDtkvX6wtWKZr flWM/Bf0gpQL6Qowl9E49J5dJj+RgSYqPZ943x37nutBYzGmn0pbqXU1ulg0WFuz 3tu4bjwLITg1BB64jnF9hwn91pnd8ECay8OMqnZxbI1QycvPTPcNkwkasqARfTs= =MJBs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 4

Re: [tor-relays] One IPv4 address, 1Gbit connection
by Tim 01 Jul '14

01 Jul '14

Tom, Why not run multiple tor relays on different ports on the same IPv4 address? For example, you could run 6 relays on 6 different ports on your IPv4 address (6 x 180 Mpbs > 1 Gbps). This would also utilise your 4 cores much more efficiently than running 2 relays (each relay will only ever use 1 core for most operations). Tim > Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:48:59 +0200 Christian Dietrich <christian.d.dietrich(a)gmail.com>: > > Hi there, > > You will never be able to utilize the whole gigabit connection, at least > with the current tor version. > I'm also running 2 tor nodes (00000000000myTOR) on a single machine (3rd > gen Core i, Quad Core /w AES-NI) on an single IP, > reaching ~1.3 Gbit/s on an 1000 Base-T FD connection. Since you do not use > hardware accelerated crypto, > your transfer speed should be much lower. Anway my relays are also cpu > limited due to the fact that tor isn't > really utilizing much more than one cpu core. > > - Christian > > > 2014-06-30 13:05 GMT+02:00 Tom van der Woerdt <info(a)tvdw.eu>: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm running a Tor exit node on a 1gbit connection. Currently it's maxing >> at about 180Mbit/s (both ways, so 360Mbit/s) per instance, and I'm running >> two instances. >> >> That's not really using the connection well. The box has 4 cores (no >> AES-NI) and I'm looking for ways to utilize the other 640Mbit/s. >> >> Sadly it's not possible to get more IPv4 addresses on this box. I do >> however have access to a big range of IPv6 addresses. >> >> Can I somehow run more Tor instances on this box by utilizing those IPv6 >> addresses? Or are there other ways to optimize the throughput and get >> closer to that 1Gbit? >> >> Tom

3 3

New Tor node operator hibernation question
by pandemicrelay＠hushmail.com 01 Jul '14

01 Jul '14

Hello, I am a new Tor relay operator, and have setup my first relay. It's been running as a Tor middle relay for about 10 days now, and it's been running solid. It has the stable, guard, fast, running, and valid flags. I have my AccountingMax quota set to start at the first of each month at midnight. However, just past midnight on 07-01 Tor said it was going to hibernate until 07-05. This had me confused as I was only about half way through my monthly quota setup in AccountingMax for June, and my hosting provider reset the data on the first at midnight. I read the manual page about AccountingMax again, and it appears this may have been normal behavior. However before I read the manual page, I forced my relay to wake up out of that hibernation. It appears to be operating normally right now. However, I am wondering if this will cause any issues this month, or in future months? Also, can someone explain if the hibernation of 5 days was normal behavior to begin with. Thank you

1 0

Hits against GFC hex-string fingerprint in IPTables yesterday
by tor＠t-3.net 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

Wanted to point out to the list that we got 3 hits to our "Libero2" relay on port 9001 from chinese IP address 210.72.9.44 to a "GFC" reject line in the relay's iptables. I think this is the first time we've seen hits to this type of rule. The packets were dropped via this iptables detection: -A INPUT -p tcp -m string --hex-string "|00002800390038008800870035008400160013000a00330032009a009900450044002f00960041000500ff020100000400230000|" --algo kmp The packets came through at approximately these times EST: Jun 29 15:36:10 Jun 29 15:36:38 Jun 29 15:37:15

1 0

One IPv4 address, 1Gbit connection
by Tom van der Woerdt 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

Hi, I'm running a Tor exit node on a 1gbit connection. Currently it's maxing at about 180Mbit/s (both ways, so 360Mbit/s) per instance, and I'm running two instances. That's not really using the connection well. The box has 4 cores (no AES-NI) and I'm looking for ways to utilize the other 640Mbit/s. Sadly it's not possible to get more IPv4 addresses on this box. I do however have access to a big range of IPv6 addresses. Can I somehow run more Tor instances on this box by utilizing those IPv6 addresses? Or are there other ways to optimize the throughput and get closer to that 1Gbit? Tom

2 1

Spam
by kingqueen 29 Jun '14

29 Jun '14

hi, well having run a relay for just under 2 weeks, I've got my first spam on this email address. As you will no doubt have guessed, this is not my usual email address, it is only used for the Tor relay contact details, this email list and a very few other projects that will not have published my email address anywhere. So I guess that this spam is as a result of my email address appearing on Atlas or Globe or similar as a result of it being the contact address for my Tor relay. I know this possibility is mentioned in the Tor documentation; I read it somewhere. I guess there's not much to be done about it; I wouldn't want to remove contact details - the address is already in the public domain anyway, and I want to be contactable with any problems. I guess I just have to use the standard spam filtering and combating measures. Could those with experience of running a relay for longer, please advise if this will become a major problem? Will spam increase substantially? Also, any suggestions very gratefully received. Thank you! KQ --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

8 13