tor-relays

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

36 participants
4815 discussions

Botnet issues and upgrading to 0.2.4.x
by Chris Whittleston 20 Oct '13

20 Oct '13

Hey guys, So I just started running a non-exit relay on a Raspberry Pi, and have hit a problem where it seems huge numbers of circuits are being created which overwhelms the system and can cause tor to crash. I read here ( https://blog.torproject.org/blog/how-to-handle-millions-new-tor-clients) that upgrading to 0.2.4.x might help with this, so I followed the instructions here: https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian#development And ran apt-get update, apt-get upgrade to get the latest version which turned out to be 0.2.4.11-alpha-1~wheezy+1 There seems to be a problem with this though as when the install finishes (or when I try to restart tor), I get this error: pi@torberrypi /etc/tor $ sudo /etc/init.d/tor restart /etc/init.d/tor: line 111: 9701 Illegal instruction $DAEMON $VERIFY_ARGS > /dev/null [FAIL] Checking if tor configuration is valid ... failed! /etc/init.d/tor: line 111: 972 https://www.torproject.org/docs/debian#development4 Illegal instruction $DAEMON $VERIFY_ARGS 1>&2 Tor is not starting and I'm unsure how to proceed - help appreciated! :) Chris

9 19

Relay behind VPN router
by Jochen 20 Oct '13

20 Oct '13

I have a TOR relay behind a Tomato router on an ADSL line. I activated the vpn client to route all traffic through privateinternetaccess.com. Because a TOR relay does not work behind NAT without port forwarding, I'm looking for a way how to route tor traffic directly to my internet provider. I can add static routes, but I don't now the IPs in advance. Maybe there is no problem to route outgoing traffic through the vpn tunnel, but how can I make my relay publish my WAN IP instead of the tunnel IP? My WAN IP is changing every day, so I cannot configure it as static. -- Mit besten Grüßen Jochen Fahrner

3 6

port 9001 udp
by zwiebel＠quantentunnel.de 19 Oct '13

19 Oct '13

Hi relay-tives! It's my first post here, so please can someone help me with my question Why do I have to open 9001 UDP at the DSL router firewall and not necessarily in iptables? Is it something specific on my side or does someone has an explanation? The OR service seems to work. Ok - I see nearly no traffic may-be because of my small bandwidth. See some information about my system Setup PC (P4 2GB noHDD) with USB-LAN adapter (eth2) connected to DSL router (NAT & firewall) Tails 0.20.1 on SD card with USB adapter write protected Server IP x.x.x.33 received from the DHCP DSL router Goal Run PC as OR relay non exit Run OR service Dont run DIR service DSL router setting Open DSL router firewall IP x.x.x.33 TCP 9001 for OR Open DSL router firewall IP x.x.x.33 UDP 9001 for OR <= IS THE POINT Done to tails manually each time the PC turns on (amnesia!): Root terminal (password) and "/sbin/iptables -A INPUT -i eth2 -p tcp --dport 9001 -j ACCEPT" The the only change to original tails iptables list is the added rule Done to Vidalia: relay-non-exit, nickname, email, port=9001, bandwidth limits typ 20kByte/s and max 25kByte/s The log messages tell me success and all runs for a week. Thanks front-up Zwiebel _||_ / \ / O O \ \ ____ / \\__//

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] minimum ram
by Eduard 19 Oct '13

19 Oct '13

I could say that this is true. I run a relay on my desktop, and I see that after 5-7h the ram ussage increase. Even on a 16GB system, the increase is detectable. Sent from my Orange Smartphone Moritz Bartl <moritz(a)torservers.net> wrote: >On 2013-10-19 03:50, I wrote: >> Is there any utility in the very cheap VPSs with 128mb of ram? > >I did some testing quite a while ago and found that 256MB was the >minimum amount of RAM for a relay. It works for some time with >128MB, but it then runs out of memory, and it is not very good >to have it restart all the time. > >I say "was" because currently, with more than 3 million clients >in the network, a relay might even run out of memory with 256MB >RAM. I don't have any current data on that though. > >-- >Moritz Bartl >https://www.torservers.net/ >_______________________________________________ >tor-relays mailing list >tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

1 0

serious gap in 'chroot' documentation
by starlight.2013q4＠binnacle.cx 19 Oct '13

19 Oct '13

Newer versions of 'openssl' require access to /proc/sys/kernel/random and so the line /proc/sys/kernel/random /chroot_tor/proc/sys/kernel/random auto bind 0 0 must be added to the /etc/fstab file or the command mount -o bind /proc/sys/kernel/random /chroot_tor/proc/sys/kernel/random must be run from somewhere. Keep in mind that issuing the 'mount' more than once causes nested overly mounts rather than doing nothing, so the 'fstab' approach is best. Obviously the directories proc/sys/kernel/random must be created in the 'chroot' jail tree. ---------------- This problem will appear when 'tor' attempts to roll-over it's key after several days. Took significant effort of figure out what happened as 'tor' dies without comment. It appears that if 'tor' fails in the middle of a re-key operation, the node name and state is lost entirely and the relay must rebuild it's reputation from scratch with a new name. Quite vexing.

4 5

My Relay speed has dropped nearly to zero - Why?
by David Carlson 19 Oct '13

19 Oct '13

On October 8 something caused my non-exit relay speed to drop from around 50 KB to less than 10 KB according to Atlas graphs. I have checked with my ISP and run speed tests that verify my upload speed to be .96 Mb and download to be over 3 Mb, as they have been for years. I am running Tor 0.2.4.17-rc on Windows 7 and my consensus weight has dropped to 26. What could have caused this?

2 1

Re: [tor-relays] OT: Re: risk of relay exploit
by starlight＠binnacle.cx 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Very sorry! I forgot to use the throwaway version of my address that bypasses the curmudgeonly filter. Please try me at starlight.2013z3(a)binnacle.cx At 02:16 10/16/2013 +0100, Geoff Down wrote: >Hello starlight, > >Your outgoing self-generated Spam Score also gets >your emails treated as spam by my email provider >(I tried to email you privately but your >mailserver doesn't accept mail from my provider at >all...). > >GD >

1 0

risk of relay exploit
by starlight＠binnacle.cx 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Hello, Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of running a separate client-only 'tor' instance for local browsing while maintaining an independent instance configure as a relay? My thought is that if high-resource adversary exploits/subverts the relay code and inserts a trojan/parasite, they would be in a position to monitor unencrypted traffic on the SOCKS port. Is the probability of exploit significantly reduced for instances that do not accept relay connections? If so then keeping local browsing in a non-relay client would seem to be more secure since I understand that remote relays see only encrypted traffic. Thanks

3 3

significance of different bandwidth values
by starlight＠binnacle.cx 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

Question: What the difference between the bandwidth value given by getinfo ns/name/xxxxx >>> w Bandwidth=297 and getinfo dir/server/authority >>> bandwidth 300000 375000 335872 Here they are close, but sometimes they are far apart. The first above is what shows up in the Vidalia Network Map and the latter is less visible, but shows up in various web tools for monitoring the Tor Network. In particular, how are these values used in choosing route paths? Thanks

1 0

dynamically adjusting bandwidth
by starlight＠binnacle.cx 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

Hello, I've recently established a full-time relay running on a fast Linux router. Working nice with version 0.2.4.17-rc. Have a daily offsite backup that was butting heads with TOR traffic, so I wrote a 'tor_bwreduce' and 'tor_bwrestore' script like these: nc 10.92.88.1 9151 <<EOF AUTHENTICATE "xxx" SETCONF RelayBandwidthRate=60000 SETCONF RelayBandwidthBurst=60000 QUIT EOF : nc 10.92.88.1 9151 <<EOF AUTHENTICATE "xxx" SETCONF RelayBandwidthBurst=375000 SETCONF RelayBandwidthRate=250000 QUIT EOF : and run them at the appropriate points in the offsite backup script. The backup is rate-limited as well so the link now avoids going into significant oversubscription or contention. This works much better than I expected. The Tor network consensus bandwidth for the node was taking a bad hit due to congestion delays when the backup ran. Now it seems unaffected and the consensus for my node has shot up above the 'RelayBandwidthRate' value. So that's all super. The question is, should I put in an adjustment for 'MaxAdvertisedBandwidth' during the backup window or make any other change to advise remote relays to de-prioritize the node for the duration? Ideally I'd like to put the node into temporary hibernation, but it seems the only way to do that is indirectly by fiddling with several Accounting* parameters. Thanks! P.S. BTW Vidalia could use some improvement in the area of dealing with a Tor relay living on a different box in the same network. Nothing major, but it should 1) not override the config and/or warn first 2) import the config when a virgin TBB install connects to a non-local address 3) not shut down the relay casually without an "are you sure?" pop-up

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays