- tor-relays - lists.torproject.org

Bridge or Relay
by Sebastian Urbach 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

Hi, I really wonder why we even bother to have a FAQ: http://torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#RelayOrBridge -- 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

Phishy
by phrag 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

FYI: Just got this to my Tor relay mail address, with a zip file attached extracting to a '.scr' win exe. Curiously routed via a .gov.uk mail relay... GB03022014.scr: PE32 executable (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows MD5: dba1e52929f6ca9d1a1bf87e4ff469cf GB2546241.zip MD5: fb1141494829b144b0075035022cfbb9 GB03022014.scr Samples available on request. Full mail headers attached. ========== From defeats871(a)richszabo.com Mon Feb 03 14:06:39 2014 Return-path: <defeats871(a)richszabo.com> Received: from [217.109.27.97] (helo=WNACDHPXR) Received: from mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com by server.justinarcher.net Received: from gateway-102.energis.gsi.gov.uk (HELO mx.hosting-w.gsi.gov.uk) (62.25.106.208) by server-10.tower-205.messagelabs.com X-Env-Sender: gateway.confirmation(a)gateway.gov.uk From: <gateway.confirmation(a)gateway.gov.uk> To: <tor(a)phra.gs> Subject: Your Online Submission for Reference 485/GB2546241 Could not process Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:16:02 +0100 The submission for reference 485/GB2546241 was successfully received and was not processed. Check attached copy for more information. This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply as the email address is not monitored for received mail. ==========

4 3

Re: [tor-relays] Phishy
by Jesse Victors 03 Feb '14

03 Feb '14

> FYI: Just got this to my Tor relay mail address, with a zip file > attached extracting to a '.scr' win exe. Curiously routed via a .gov.uk > mail relay... > > GB03022014.scr: PE32 executable (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows > > MD5: dba1e52929f6ca9d1a1bf87e4ff469cf GB2546241.zip > MD5: fb1141494829b144b0075035022cfbb9 GB03022014.scr > > Samples available on request. Full mail headers attached. I read Jurre's analysis, but I disagree. I could be mixing this up with something else, but if I recall correctly, that screensaver Trojan Horse trick was one method by which the government was de-anonymizing Tor users, though I don't recall the exact name of this attack vector. Your IP of your relay is public of course, but if you opened that a location/identity that you wanted to stay hidden, in my opinion I would consider that to be compromised. Thanks for the report.

1 0

New GPG key for Runa A. Sandvik
by Runa A. Sandvik 02 Feb '14

02 Feb '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi everyone, Tomorrow is my first day as a staff technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C. I will continue to contribute to the Tor Project in one way or another. This new key will be used to sign email from me going forward. The new key is attached and is also available on the keyservers (with a signature from my old key) at: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x094D46E2898DB6D5 Here's the fingerprint and current subkey information for reference: pub 4096R/898DB6D5 2014-02-02 Key fingerprint = BEBA DB46 6778 5EF9 B00E D141 094D 46E2 898D B6D5 uid Runa A. Sandvik (offline long term identity key) <runa.sandvik(a)gmail.com> uid Runa A. Sandvik (offline long term identity key) <runa(a)cdt.org> uid Runa A. Sandvik (offline long term identity key) <runa(a)torproject.org> sub 3072R/AC8C6CF6 2014-02-02 [expires: 2015-02-02] sub 3072R/FC71640D 2014-02-02 [expires: 2015-02-02] - -- Runa A. Sandvik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJS7qvsAAoJECgKOvb8cWQNT1UL/joI4P1++EIUPmudw179o+j3 4FxEV32snfYNwW9NTaQNwGODglu7EMZRQ4V1UhytXUb9P7taT0eDgiJxPIvC8Okw xZ7jmk5UnV+R37rMLuhcX1Ifwg3Z+tG0qAwJAbFhO/zZX3yTx+ZJoQBjZ4pX5SFQ qE5G7IeLUrWEAIZfm6mLp3M/kh/+8+e5MPsxrdywo9iLi3Y2IB9mO5VVb94qA5Ul l0ETWilusa9PNRD70jtWhQL6EjPS1tkKVbMFk04naDLr+74gwFAta38tJcnZtPId jZXhqpfqcxD0muaEwyvGtV2qfAxbDuDPDxVJofMeK5S5GESOe4AqLyrkMf4MPz4Z ifKFguKpYAiA4Hz9+v4AoZPhX1Zu33AV/4gfE/Q4ZHq3DtqzEkcyzvvEw9kL0pk+ lJC7+R58dJiJ7pGedG9ZCyJugyp6pujiD34RppPL90JxnP5s3V11VkBiv5ZEnB+k kvBq94TkyFD8bUncFhmh4ilkloPDOrqMcfYGl1VjGg== =KZvl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Ubuntu is killing tor when getting low memory
by toxi roxi 02 Feb '14

02 Feb '14

Hi Folks, im running many relays which are doing a nice job. But i have also some smaller relays outside which have just 256mb. They are performing quite quell - but on one relay im facing issues which i think you may help me. this relay seems to ran out of memory from time to time (2 to 5 days) and i found out via dmesg, that ubuntu itself is killing the process to free up memory. the swap is used, but far away from full. as this stops tor immediately its bit annoying that i need to restart the releay without any reason. is there any way to tell ubuntu or to prevent that the tor process is killed for freeing up memory? i dont care about other processes as this machine is for tor purposes only. thanks for your expertise! Geri

2 3

Tails 0.22.1~rc1
by K. Besig 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

Is anyone having luck setting up a mid-relay within the latest Tails build? I'm finding no joy..

3 3

Re: [tor-relays] Considering setting up an exit, need advice
by Jesse Victors 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

> Have you set AccountingMax in your torrc, by chance? > > Also, you sure are restarting the relay a lot. You should learn how to > use 'service reload' rather than 'service restart'. :) No, I don't have AccountingMax enabled, which is one of the reasons why I was puzzled by the hibernation flag. Thanks for the tips on the service, I should have known better. I was restarting often because I was making adjustments to the DirPort and the hosted webpage (that .png thumbnail never loaded when it was offered locally, so I just linked to the hosted one on torproject.org) and it took a few tries before things were working right. Well, at least I won't be restarting Tor frequently going forward. Thanks. >> 3) There are mysterious warnings in the log: >> >> Jan 30 23:07:29.000 [warn] EXTEND cell received, but not via >> RELAY_EARLY. Dropping. [4 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3600 >> seconds] >> Jan 30 23:07:29.000 [warn] (We have dropped 95.24% of all EXTEND cells >> for this reason) > You don't happen to have set "ProtocolWarnings 1" in your torrc, have you? > >> I'm familiar with the meaning of the "EXTEND" cell, but I'm not sure >> what RELAY_EARLY is > See > https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/proposals/110-avoid-in… > as motivated by > http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#congestion-longpaths > > My guess is that these are unofficial Tor clients you're seeing, and > you're seeing them more because all official Tor clients are ignoring > your relay until it gets out of 'phase one' (from the blog post). Yes, I had ProtocolWarnings enabled, good eyes there. I had it on because I thought that it would help me see Tor-level security threats, but I think it's better with it off at least for now. Thanks for the help. Jesse

1 0

Re: [tor-relays] Considering setting up an exit, need advice
by Jesse Victors 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

Thanks again guys for the help. "usuexit" is now online, and should be functioning properly, but there seem to be a few mystifying issues: 1) TorStatus marks it as "hibernating" which it clearly isn't; it's online and accepting connections. I'm not sure what made TorStatus think it was offline. 2) For the first nine hours it has moved about 12 MB of data. I would think it would be more than that, especially for an exit. There's a blog post outlining the growth rate for guards, but how about for exits? 3) There are mysterious warnings in the log: Jan 30 21:57:36.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 0/0 TAP, 50/50 NTor. Jan 30 22:57:36.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 0/0 TAP, 31/31 NTor. Jan 30 23:07:29.000 [warn] EXTEND cell received, but not via RELAY_EARLY. Dropping. [4 similar message(s) suppressed in last 3600 seconds] Jan 30 23:07:29.000 [warn] (We have dropped 95.24% of all EXTEND cells for this reason) Jan 30 23:57:36.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 0/0 TAP, 39/39 NTor. Jan 31 00:01:41.000 [warn] Got headers "HEAD / HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n" with unknown command. Closing. Jan 31 00:57:36.000 [notice] Circuit handshake stats since last time: 2/2 TAP, 41/41 NTor. Jan 31 01:04:46.000 [warn] EXTEND cell received, but not via RELAY_EARLY. Dropping. Jan 31 01:04:46.000 [warn] (We have dropped 95.45% of all EXTEND cells for this reason) I'm familiar with the meaning of the "EXTEND" cell, but I'm not sure what RELAY_EARLY is, nor do I know what this warning means. If the relay has an exit policy, why are circuits being extended beyond it? Hidden services, maybe? Basically the log has more warnings in it than it should (at least based on my experience with regular relays) and I'm not sure why. I tried restarting Tor, but the warnings still appeared. Any ideas on what I can do about them, if anything? Thanks, Jesse

2 1

Using syslog for monitoring bridges
by Andreas Fritzel 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

Hey all, In two different countries I run 3 Tor bridges for a while now. For monitoring, I want to quit using the local filesystem for storing files, filled by syslog and be able to store the syslog info on a remote system. This is done easily with rsyslog[1], but I want to store it at home without the link between the three bridges and my home IP. So, I was thinking about sending it with rsyslog over TCP to a Tor Hidden Service. Is there anyone who can help me out with this? I was thinking about using SOCKS, but it didn't work out :(. Andreas [1] http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/manual.html

6 5

Problems with domestic ISP blocking publicly listed relays
by Paul Blakeman 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

Hi all Wondered if anybody could help out/advise as to what’s happened here… I’m based in UK and have domestic internet with Virgin Media. This service is fibre optic based - config: 30Mbps d/l & 2Mbps u/l [mine is the SLOWEST package!] Last year I finally configured a Dell server (running Debian 7.3 - wheezy) to run a Tor relay (0.2.3.25) Everything has been running fine except for the last few weeks I’ve noticed a few irregularities. The first one has been Tor itself where I have noticed (using Arm to monitor) that it has been downloading far more data than uploading. A ratio of say 5:1 — it hasn’t always been this way! The other is my general difficulty in accessing certain web sites online (that once worked) e.g. Access to lovefim.com this weekend has now resulted in no longer able to stream and watch films. I can log onto system but if I try and stream I get the error message “INVALID LOCATION. Sorry, but the requested content is not available in your current location.” Opened a service desk ticket but the response was “you are trying to stream from outside the UK” WTF????? My IP provided by my ISP has been the same all this time (82.42.215.16) I have spoken with them I would have to switch off for 48hrs and MAY NOT (in fact I was told “probably not”) be assigned a different one! SO… Can using a Tor relay result in your IP getting a “bad” flag? Is there anyway of running a relay where you “hide” your IP? Any advise would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Paul

6 7