- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

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

False warnings about inaccurate clock
by Stephan 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

Hi all, I got two strange warnings within three days that I've never found in my logs before: > Apr 15 21:58:08.000 [warn] Our clock is 1 minutes, 52 seconds behind > the time published in the consensus network status document (2014-04-15 > 20:00:00 UTC). Tor needs an accurate clock to work correctly. Please > check your time and date settings! > Apr 18 15:58:03.000 [warn] Our clock is 1 minutes, 57 seconds behind > the time published in the consensus network status document (2014-04-18 > 14:00:00 UTC). Tor needs an accurate clock to work correctly. Please > check your time and date settings! My "problem" with these warnings is: my server's time is correct. I'm running an NTP demon and verified the time manually - there is not even one second deviation, much less nearly two minutes. Has anyone else experienced such warnings these last days? Is it really my server or could it be an error with the consensus network status document? -Stephan

3 2

Re: [tor-relays] A few questions about my setting up my first Tor relay.
by Nastase G. Eduard 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

Well, this really convinced me on using Raspberry as a relay. Very nice guide. Due to the very low power consumption I'm thinking on setting relays that are battery and solar powered (I'll build some grapheme supercapacitators) and using an anonymous internet connection (3G/4G via a mobile router, very easy to obtain). Could be something nice. Richard Budd <rotorbudd(a)gmail.com> wrote: >_______________________________________________ >tor-relays mailing list >tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] Init.d script for two simultaneous Tor instances
by Jesse Victors 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 I prefer "ps aux | grep tor" and then you can seem them running side by side. You can also seem them on htop, which I prefer over top. My init.d script sets a different log file to each instance, allowing you to monitor the logs of each independently. If you are clever though, you could do something like alias torlogmon='watch -n 10 "cat /var/log/tor/notices.log | tail -8 && echo \"***************\" && cat /var/log/tor2/notices.log | tail -8"' and watch the logs of both at the same time. If you want to use arm you will have to set arm up for each instance. I've been moving away from arm in favor of other tools, one of which is "speedometer", a nifty package that allows you to monitor bandwidth usage remotely. If Tor is the only thing on your machine, you get basically the same thing as the arm graph. alias speedometer="speedometer -l -m 1048576 -rx eth0 -c -tx eth0" Where 1048576 is the maximum bytes/sec value that will be shown in the y-axis on the linear graph. Modify depending on your utilization. I prefer working with powers of 2 with this. The man page is useful of course. Jesse V. On 04/18/2014 03:19 AM, tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org wrote: > Jesse, > > What's the test that there are two instances running? > top? Are they visible in arm? > > Robert -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJTUWqTXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yA2cYH/RLgurJnbLXXFrfbg9bnxr5E pZZl7j/UBCa9hCmvMBKRdGBSglzivNU/5XQ5gmdSpjzgPop6g7BYd2FPrQRBP3TF tOsmYf+hrPHwZlG9OVyAhhxx1fBwRyQnEcuOp5B87XXh14LAd1xPBFUR5lx1qLYm JRpKdu3d3izk0lGVbsU3tMWceu9lmTogoHtaSSkSLawZmzje4EDLcTACnVJjGxPA FGruIXgr3VLrGnlX0f+XngDGbN3TmrdnSTa6WKFn5r4SSEL/Pl1u2AO7Y/z15fyQ FoloQVYUrO0Vhckc+Qy2tuaQFkT2ol0vfSr08lCmuy3+udKlYRfRKTyPcoyHr/8= =SyIv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Init.d script for two simultaneous Tor instances
by Jesse Victors 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Yes, it's better to have faster relays. However, if you are setting up a relay or exit on a gigabit connection it may take some time before you see significant utilization of the pipe. By running two Tor instances at once you can increase the contribution of the Tor network without sacrificing the speed of either relay. Monitoring and good judgment is key here, I wouldn't run multiple relays on a slow computer or one with a slow Internet connection. Watch the logs and just make sure everything is running well, as always. Jesse V. On 04/17/2014 11:43 PM, tor-relays-request(a)lists.torproject.org wrote: > Jesse, > > Thank you for that. > I think I can implement it now but I couldn't have set-up second Tor instances without help. > > The question to my mind is at what point is it better to use a fast connection for two Tor instances? > Isn't it always better to have faster relays rather than more relays? > > Robert -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJTUWhJXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxMjgyMjhENjEyODQ1OTU1NzBCMjgwRkFB RDk3MzY0RkMyMEJFQzgwAAoJEK2XNk/CC+yAPOIH/16fENaDiAAtBm5AHyf3uJ3X PgeJWgoBQE+35YpGne0Hlun/7ycI9jRuRu/z2vI9aRvnLuaNcaD7rIYGkzVQtBBE n/N4KxpByg5E7Wv4s0TmpnT3DQqjYpEFScGd9TvoWdwA9iTJ1sXrqQ7ByjQhuS/O bUhPhck9YFrW7QwJ5OckYe16wuuPf4+mBH1mCq40nLRPWx+pCmgY53LFYzePl9dp QwQCPH664Wa+/yrtJfoSfiZvPwWWDPL/vFJIYHkSoT1p0V1y6P2M7YD2ArM3LRyQ H7hy7nnFyVs/omRo1yBwplIkx/FivrCh26hZlYXB7xVi64cUV+SqKIBnkwcehTU= =gzt4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0