tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

running a relay on a home connection
by abhiram 19 Dec '13

19 Dec '13

Hello, I am running a tor relay on a home connection. My connection is assigned a new ip as the lease expires every few days. So far I am fixing this my editing my torrc file with the new address value. Are there better ways of handing this? One thing that puzzled me was that when I first setup my relay it was unable to find the external address of my connection and its log files kept complaining that: "If x.x.x.x:9030 is not your correct IP address and directory port, please check your relay's configuration" Obviously it wasn't my ip address, when I looked it up it was from another country. So my question is why is my relay advertising this specific address? thanks for your time. -- Abhiram Chintangal

6 8

Re: [tor-relays] running a relay on a home connection (abhiram)
by Oliver Schönefeld 19 Dec '13

19 Dec '13

hello to everybody, as there were some alternatives for dynmic DNS handling mentioned, i'd like to add the following: as with most commercial dyndns providers come conditions (paid account, limited number of hosts, and - what annoys me the most - login after x days, etc.) i want to point you to https://nsupdate.info. this is an open-source project which offers dynamic DNS service with some advantages. i.e. they state they state in their "why another one?"-section: nagging its users to make a paid subscription annoying its users with advertisements or spam cancelling hosts or accounts after a short period of non-usage hiding the few free features almost undiscoverably between a ton of commercial-only features so check it out and a nice day to all of you!

2 1

bandwith unit
by Kiss Gabor (Bitman) 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

Dear folks, I'm tor relay operator since several years but newbie on this list. I just moved node 'traktor' from physical host to virtual machine. So I revised all settings and checked if all works well. I found a funny thing. My RelayBandwidthRate is set to 1 MB (i.e. 8 Mbps). ## Define these to limit how much relayed traffic you will allow. Your ## own traffic is still unthrottled. Note that RelayBandwidthRate must ## be at least 20 KB. ## Note that units for these config options are bytes per second, not bits ## per second, and that prefixes are binary prefixes, i.e. 2^10, 2^20, etc. #RelayBandwidthRate 100 KB # Throttle traffic to 100KB/s (800Kbps) #RelayBandwidthBurst 200 KB # But allow bursts up to 200KB/s (1600Kbps) RelayBandwidthRate 1 MB However on page https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=traktor the "Adverised Bandwith" column shows cca. 125 kB/s. Did I misunderstand the difference between kbps and kBps? Gabor

4 5

Relay / Bridge
by Sebastian Urbach 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Hi, Your system is now lsted: ec2bridgerocks001 https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/50855F45464DBE84E917B0ED74E2144E785BA… -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Sincerely yours Sebsstian Urbach ----------------------------------- Religion is a symptom of irrational belief and groundless hope. ----------------------------------- Gregory House, M.D.

6 6

Torservers awarded $250,000 by Digital Defenders
by Christian 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hej! Torservers.net has been awarded $250,000 over two years by the Digital Defenders Partnership to strengthen and improve the Tor network, the anonymity system crucial to journalists and human rights defenders using the Internet. <https://blog.torservers.net/20131213/torservers-awarded-250000-by-digital-d…> Tor is free software and an open network that helps internet users to defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. It is used by hundreds of thousands of daily users worldwide to secure their online communication, avoid tracking, and circumvent censorship. Tor protects users by bouncing communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, and it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location. Torservers.net provides high bandwidth infrastructure for the Tor network since 2010. We have grown to 10 volunteer-run organizations in 8 countries. Torservers.net distributes donations and grants across independent organizations of IT security professionals, and helps build a sustainable network by teaching others how to run stable Tor infrastructure. The Digital Defenders Partnership was established in 2012 to provide rapid response to threats to internet freedom. The Partnership aims at keeping the internet open and free from emerging threats, specifically in internet repressive and transitional environments. It also wants to increase and better coordinate emergency support for the internet?s critical users, such as bloggers, cyber activists, journalists and human rights defenders, whenever and wherever they are under threat. Thanks to the newly awarded grant of $250,000 over two years, participating Torservers organizations will be able to sustain at least 3 Gbit/s of exit traffic, and 2000 fast and up to date bridges. Tor bridges are required in many countries with state-level censorship. 3 Gbit/s are 949 terabytes, almost a petabyte of user data, every single month, per direction. Call for organizations To strengthen the Tor network and prevent attackers, it is crucial to spread operation across as many groups as possible. Thanks to the Digital Defenders, Torservers.net can now extend its work and help less technical organizations with the setup and maintenance of Tor services. The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) is the first civil society organization to join the Torservers program with its Cyber Arabs group. This collaboration allows Cyber Arabs to give stable and working Tor access to activists and journalists in the Arab world. If you are part of an organization interested in supporting Tor, please contact Torservers.net. They have various options available, and are happy to teach tech staff and journalists. ?Since we started Torservers.net a few years ago, Tor finally became fast enough to be used for all Internet communications? comments Moritz Bartl, co-founder of Torservers.net. ?New people also join the Tor network every day. With the help of the Digital Defenders, we have the chance to make the network bigger, safer and more resilient to the benefit of everyone with the desires to protect their online activities from surveillance.? Contact Juris Vetra Zwiebelfreude e.V. c/o DID Dresdner Institut für Datenschutz Palaisplatz 3 D-01097 Dresden Germany Fax: +49-(0)911-30 844 667 48 Phone: +49-(0)351-212 960 19 press(a)torservers.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSrE7/AAoJEPSKc6jBxtf31rAP/15mEwAiE8dX/+q4n4mKlomj D/eaFJMTRGazwr4J0U92n3ArxBLCAYiIQV/yIYW9R6IGqMTrHX18GSoHw8bF5Xmf BbHDZ4h7IeY2Z6lkMJBqwNejMI0zFqi6rZmIQl4sU4MeByBRtJBePrwJ1+eSn/Kt hSpxZLqTt7geY/V8D97EOjG0+gGfOtZyxCPbmz49g4NTKiI34Sg+pDpgVoqqTFsb XTY8cAn6pDYu60atDTv4F4kyhWkPBKmrkwUL4F65A8VFHu3Hgld2VxveeiZBIbYY 2gsiVz/u16CPts7RGDJdmi/sSa4xo76nKQk5QufM1sS4jahiGn07srNLdWud3NQP VUTty0Wwa8lvBrBbEPUn/Z14sXsXHS3z5WUrLQNGoi4RJxY7+JSimKYxoWz47ejv ps8vHM54McwoJzkbV9wYpOphhQ57v+Ps+l2sW7/T+s3AseP9Ji4sUFotPbeBWhxr MR905ulKYMVXasIWixiOxNsSzPgIPYufIPppMu49dWblaDGKYgkZAgGNgEqa2nl/ C8RAKIW4PwFdb513diUzuYJqHL5GiAGnU+OuPoqn7LYpnN/qmbEGyZNyoXaCp+pR rWAfzQCwL1fTNwMIrcdE3KDZ+oFNmeLZx3uUCHQ45XF4ojuYsGy1lOyhxSAZ1sb3 uWo4s9PMZOKjPOjxt/XQ =6o8b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 5

Re: [tor-relays] Help testing patch on SandyBridge/IvyBridge? Force disable use of RDRAND in OpenSSL when HardwareAccel is enabled
by coderman 14 Dec '13

14 Dec '13

correct address this time :/ Fwd: #include <std_disclaimer.h> i am not speaking for Tor devs nor Tor project - the cautious should wait for a review and merge. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:14 AM, coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > this is logged as trac ticket: > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10402 > ... > help coderman test mitigation patch: > https://peertech.org/dist/tor-0.2.4.19-rdrand-disable.patch > https://peertech.org/dist/tor-0.2.5.1-rdrand-disable.patch > https://peertech.org/dist/tor-latest-rdrand-disable.patch many thanks to rl1987! the patches have been updated and verified. anyone running a relay on openssl 1.0.x with HardwareAccel 1 and seeing this line in their notices.log: "[notice] Using OpenSSL engine Intel RDRAND engine [rdrand] for RAND" should** apply the apropos patch above and let me know if it doesn't work. a successful mitigation will look like this: """ [warn] OpenSSL is using RDRAND by default. Attempting to force disable. ... [notice] Using default implementation for RAND . """ **last but not least, please do run a userspace entropy collector like haveged, dakarand, etc. also be sure you're on a recent kernel that is using RDRAND in a conservative / robust manner.[0] best regards, 0. "void extract_buf(struct entropy_store *r, __u8 *out)" https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/driver… good use of RDRAND is: 1. mixed into a hash across the pool, not XOR'd against output, 2. mix the mix back into pool (prevent backtrack attacks) 3. atomically extract portion of pool and mix 4. fold final extracted output in half for conservative operation

1 0

Understanding bandwidth rate
by Florian Lindner 11 Dec '13

11 Dec '13

Hello, I'm using tor 0.2.3.25 from Debian Wheezy, the exit policy is recject *.*, I'm not using the node myself. arm shows these actual bandwidths: Bandwidth (limit: 16 Mb/s, burst: 32 Mb/s, measured: 48.6 Kb/s): Download (13.9 Mb/sec - avg: 11.3 Mb/sec, total: 211.9 GB): Upload (16.0 Mb/sec - avg: 12.6 Mb/sec, total: 237.9 GB): This is my related config: BandwidthRate 5 MB # not set in config BandwidthBurst 10 MB # not set in config RelayBandwidthRate 2 MB # set in config RelayBandwidthBurst 4 MB # set in config I'm a bit puzzled.... Why is bandwidth limit 16 Mb/s? Why bandwidth burst 32 Mb/s? Since I'm not using the node for anything else but relaying I except the bandwidth is more or less equal the RelayBandwidth limit I set. But the averages are so much higher than either the BandwidthRate and the RelayBandwidthRate? What is my problem of understanding here? Thanks, Florian

7 8

Re: [tor-relays] Understanding bandwidth rate
by Oliver Schönefeld 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

actually it's Mb, which stands for megabit. since one byte is 8 bit, 2 becomes 16 and 4 becomes 32. therfoe you shoul set your config to 250 Kb (250 Kbit * 8 equals 2000 KByte equals 2 MByte) and 500 Kb (500 Kbit * 8 equals42000 KByte equals 4 MByte). kind regards, Oli Am 10.12.2013 um 13:00 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. Understanding bandwidth rate (Florian Lindner) > 2. Re: Understanding bandwidth rate (BugZ) > 3. Re: Understanding bandwidth rate (Roman Mamedov) > > Von: Florian Lindner <mailinglists(a)xgm.de> > Betreff: [tor-relays] Understanding bandwidth rate > Datum: 10 .Dezember 2013 11:47:45 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > Hello, > > I'm using tor 0.2.3.25 from Debian Wheezy, the exit policy is recject *.*, I'm not using the node myself. > > arm shows these actual bandwidths: > > Bandwidth (limit: 16 Mb/s, burst: 32 Mb/s, measured: 48.6 Kb/s): > Download (13.9 Mb/sec - avg: 11.3 Mb/sec, total: 211.9 GB): > Upload (16.0 Mb/sec - avg: 12.6 Mb/sec, total: 237.9 GB): > > This is my related config: > > BandwidthRate 5 MB # not set in config > BandwidthBurst 10 MB # not set in config > RelayBandwidthRate 2 MB # set in config > RelayBandwidthBurst 4 MB # set in config > > I'm a bit puzzled.... > > Why is bandwidth limit 16 Mb/s? Why bandwidth burst 32 Mb/s? > > Since I'm not using the node for anything else but relaying I except the bandwidth is more or less equal the RelayBandwidth limit I set. But the averages are so much higher than either the BandwidthRate and the RelayBandwidthRate? > > What is my problem of understanding here? > > Thanks, > Florian > > > > > Von: BugZ <bugmagnet1(a)gmail.com> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] Understanding bandwidth rate > Datum: 10 .Dezember 2013 12:39:00 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > B=bytes > b=bits > > therefore, > Your config setting of 2MB = 16mb > Your config setting of 4MB = 32mb > > > > On 12/10/2013 5:47 AM, Florian Lindner wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm using tor 0.2.3.25 from Debian Wheezy, the exit policy is recject *.*, I'm not using the node myself. >> >> arm shows these actual bandwidths: >> >> Bandwidth (limit: 16 Mb/s, burst: 32 Mb/s, measured: 48.6 Kb/s): >> Download (13.9 Mb/sec - avg: 11.3 Mb/sec, total: 211.9 GB): >> Upload (16.0 Mb/sec - avg: 12.6 Mb/sec, total: 237.9 GB): >> >> This is my related config: >> >> BandwidthRate 5 MB # not set in config >> BandwidthBurst 10 MB # not set in config >> RelayBandwidthRate 2 MB # set in config >> RelayBandwidthBurst 4 MB # set in config >> >> I'm a bit puzzled.... >> >> Why is bandwidth limit 16 Mb/s? Why bandwidth burst 32 Mb/s? >> >> Since I'm not using the node for anything else but relaying I except the bandwidth is more or less equal the RelayBandwidth limit I set. But the averages are so much higher than either the BandwidthRate and the RelayBandwidthRate? >> >> What is my problem of understanding here? >> >> Thanks, >> Florian >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > > > > > Von: Roman Mamedov <rm(a)romanrm.net> > Betreff: Aw: [tor-relays] Understanding bandwidth rate > Datum: 10 .Dezember 2013 12:50:58 MEZ > An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > Antwort an: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:39:00 -0500 > BugZ <bugmagnet1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Your config setting of 2MB = 16mb >> Your config setting of 4MB = 32mb > > "mb" what, millibytes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix > > If you're trying to teach others then at least get it right yourself... > > -- > With respect, > Roman > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

Your system clock just jumped
by Jobiwan Kenobi 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

I've been running a relay for about months now. It runs on an 1.6 Ghz single core Atom with hyperthreading, 1GB of RAM. It's on my home connection; I advertise only 176 KB/sec. Under normal conditions, it pumps around 100KB/sec, it has around 600 connections, it uses around 20% CPU. Everything looks very healthy. Lately I have seen a couple of incidents where the number of connections suddenly goes up to over 3000, traffic increases heavily, CPU usage goes well over 150% (out of possible 200). Traffic can go up to between 500 and 1000 KB/sec for long periods of time. Sometimes it seems that my relay just can't take it anymore. In the log, the ratio of TAP handshakes goes wild, and I get clock jump warnings. My clock does not jump. This is Tor hanging while allocating memory. Today I had a really bad episode, where the box started thrashing. When it became responsive again, Tor was left in a state where it was constantly downloading about 400KB/sec more than it was uploading. Normally I have a little bit more up than down, because I'm a directory server as well. I can not explain having a lot more down than up. I can fantasize that those hangs/clock jumps ("assuming established circuits no longer work") could leave 'half' circuits. Finally I restarted my relay, (which I really don't like to do) and after a while it stabilized. At this point, my router shows a peak of almost 8000 NAT sessions. Is this normal behavior of the network (esp. the sudden increase in connections) or is this another kind of attack/probe like what we've seen in early September? Is this because this machine is just too underpowered? Should I collect/provide any diagnostics? Have others seen similar events? Thanks, -Job Nov 16 22:39:52.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 36 days 6:00 hours, with 615 circuits open. I've sent 192.16 GB and received 171.74 GB. Nov 16 22:39:52.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 87.305% Nov 16 22:39:52.000 [notice] TLS write overhead: 9% Nov 16 23:39:28.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 6011/6013 TAP, 35/35 NTor. Nov 17 00:39:28.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 12521/12521 TAP, 47/47 NTor. Nov 17 01:24:45.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 138 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 17 01:39:28.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 49689/1454481 TAP, 51/51 NTor. Nov 17 02:28:44.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 174 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 17 02:33:12.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 268 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 17 02:35:17.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 125 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 17 02:39:28.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 55822/3477278 TAP, 37/37 NTor. Nov 25 06:53:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 28194/28200 TAP, 32/32 NTor. Nov 25 07:29:57.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 114 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 07:31:58.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 121 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 07:53:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 24207/2692265 TAP, 42/42 NTor. Nov 25 08:53:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 76451/4271579 TAP, 49/49 NTor. Nov 25 09:53:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 84956/3666170 TAP, 42/42 NTor. Nov 25 10:45:15.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 302 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 11:01:59.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 1004 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 11:02:04.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 64816/3151447 TAP, 38/38 NTor. Nov 25 11:02:18.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 5 days 11:42 hours, with 2450 circuits open. I've sent 46.92 GB and received 46.11 GB. Nov 25 11:02:18.000 [notice] Average packaged cell fullness: 82.623% Nov 25 11:02:18.000 [notice] TLS write overhead: 8% Nov 25 11:53:31.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 18710/1099205 TAP, 193/202 NTor. Nov 25 13:22:03.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 1923 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 13:27:23.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 70795/3452514 TAP, 138/140 NTor. Nov 25 13:35:51.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 828 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 13:42:15.000 [warn] Your system clock just jumped 384 seconds forward; assuming established circuits no longer work. Nov 25 13:43:15.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and resetting internal state. Nov 25 13:43:16.000 [notice] Read configuration file "/opt/etc/tor/torrc". Nov 25 13:46:09.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit now. Nov 25 13:46:39.000 [notice] Clean shutdown finished. Exiting.

3 3

Relay - Conflicting data (Atlas != log)
by Mark Jamsek 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

I am trying to run a restricted exit relay on FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE in a jail. I tested it out a couple days ago on an old(er) box, and everything worked fine: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/A5CA10E554124289C1B42B4CCA68F0CACFE50… Decided to get it running on a fresher rig, all appears well according to system data: $ tail notices.log Dec 02 15:49:31.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 90%: Establishing a Tor circuit. Dec 02 15:49:34.000 [notice] Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like client functionality is working. Dec 02 15:49:34.000 [notice] Bootstrapped 100%: Done. Dec 02 15:49:34.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort 110.146.133.98:9001 and DirPort 110.146.133.98:9030 are reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) Dec 02 15:49:40.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor. Dec 02 15:49:59.000 [notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. Dec 02 15:50:33.000 [notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Dec 02 15:50:33.000 [notice] Not advertising DirPort (Reason: AccountingMax enabled) Dec 02 15:51:50.000 [notice] Your DNS provider gave an answer for "rmus4fklislhf", which is not supposed to exist. Apparently they are hijacking DNS failures. Trying to correct for this. We've noticed 1 possibly bad address so far. Dec 02 21:49:39.000 [notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 6:00 hours, with 0 circuits open. I've sent 946 kB and received 7.09 MB. $ ps -aux |grep tor USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND torrelay 86844 0.0 12.1 60532 52796 ?? IJ 3:49PM 0:33.50 tor --RunAsDaemon 1 Apart from the DNS hijacking entry(?), Tor is apparently up and running. However, according to Atlas, it is not: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/EE16D7A4FBCF6494FEE75C856D76782295CB9… (forgot to backup tor key; hence, the different print) Not sure what to think or do. Is it advertised on Atlas as false due to this entry: [notice] Not advertising DirPort (Reason: AccountingMax enabled) Or is one of the two sources (system or Atlas) wrongly reporting? Thank you. -- 01101101 01100001 01110010 01101011

2 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays