Speed of my relay not correct on global list
Good day. I hope this is the correct mailing list for this. I run a small relay, alias "Empire64" (I tried an exit once, but my IP was then banned at several places, so back to only a relay) on Win Xp. It is very small (bandwidth 80k, burst 160k) but it used to be smaller (64k). Back when it was 64k, I still had a lot of traffic, and in Vidalia's "View the network" list of relays, I was listed as a 64k node. Now that I have increased bandwidth and would like to increase it more depending on how much traffic this creates, I see that no one uses my relay, I have practically no traffic. I think this is because in the "View the network" list, I am listed as a 10k node! I know that Tor has changed since I ran the relay at 64k. If I understand correctly, the Tor network now TESTS for bandwidth before accepting the declared bandwidth in the torRC file. Well obviously, this testing is not working for me. I have "attached" a screenshot of one of the rare times when I do have traffic - as you can see, my node DOES run @ 80k. But, see the other "attached" pic, I am showing in the list as a 10k node. Also, the Atlas shows me as UNNAMMED, I don't understand why, I am the only one with that alias... Tor80k screenshot: <https://unsee.cc/sumipoge/> (it needs javascript) Tor10k screenshot: <https://unsee.cc/deguzoba/> Can you guys help me with this? I'd like to contribute to the network but its not working for me now, and besides, the more traffic goes through me, the better it hides my own traffic; I want more :-) My uptime (from the Atlas): 22 days 3 hours 23 minutes and 16 seconds Fingerprint: E1DFC86060848E0FDCC7B0F072FA9EBAC639DA66 Platform: Tor 0.2.4.21 on Windows XP (updated to 2.4.22 just now) Thank you. Best Regards, -- ' _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com ' (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- oO-( )-Oo Pentium of Borg: Division's futile; You will be approximated.
I run a small relay, alias "Empire64" >(I tried an exit once, but my IP was >then banned at several places, so >back to only a relay) on Win Xp.
PSA: XP is out of date, and no longer supported by Microsoft. Please update, if you can't afford MS licensing please consider a Linux OS.
Matthew Harrold <tormailinglist@marrold.co.uk> wrote:
I run a small relay, alias "Empire64" >(I tried an exit once, but my IP was >then banned at several places, so >back to only a relay) on Win Xp.
PSA: XP is out of date, and no longer supported by Microsoft. Please update, if you can't afford MS licensing please consider a Linux OS.
Ahem. I think that should be amended to say, "...please consider a currently supported OS", which would include the BSDs (e.g., DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD, OS X, NetBSD, OpenBSD, primarily) and Solaris at the least, as well as LINUX. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at sdf.org *or* bennett at freeshell.org * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************
On 2014-07-19 06:16, Scott Bennett <bennett@sdf.org> wrote:
Matthew Harrold <tormailinglist@marrold.co.uk> wrote:
I run a small relay, alias "Empire64" >(I tried an exit once, but my IP was >then banned at several places, so >back to only a relay) on Win Xp.
PSA: XP is out of date, and no longer supported by Microsoft. Please update, if you can't afford MS licensing please consider a Linux OS. [snip]
Who cares that MS doesn't support it. So you are claiming that because it runs on Xp the speed testing is failing? I find that hard to believe. -- _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- oO-( )-Oo Redundant book title: "Macs for dummies."
Who cares that MS doesn't support it. So you are claiming that because it runs on Xp the speed testing is failing? I find that hard to believe.
It more along the lines of running vulnerable software that can be easily exploited - gm -----Original Message----- From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-bounces@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of B00ze/Empire Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:31 PM To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Speed of my relay not correct on global list On 2014-07-19 06:16, Scott Bennett <bennett@sdf.org> wrote:
Matthew Harrold <tormailinglist@marrold.co.uk> wrote:
I run a small relay, alias "Empire64" >(I tried an exit once, but my IP was >then banned at several places, so >back to only a relay) on Win Xp.
PSA: XP is out of date, and no longer supported by Microsoft. Please update, if you can't afford MS licensing please consider a Linux OS. [snip]
Who cares that MS doesn't support it. So you are claiming that because it runs on Xp the speed testing is failing? I find that hard to believe. -- _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- oO-( )-Oo Redundant book title: "Macs for dummies." _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM, B00ze/Empire <B00ze64@hotmail.com> wrote:
Who cares that MS doesn't support it. So you are claiming that because it runs on Xp the speed testing is failing? I find that hard to believe.
Everyone using Tor cares. I believe the other posters are seizing on this detail because it is much more important for you to upgrade your vulnerable machine than to worry about what speed is reported. Perhaps it is better for now that your speed is under-reported, to keep too many clients from connecting to a potentially dangerous relay.
-- _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- oO-( )-Oo Redundant book title: "Macs for dummies."
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On 2014-07-20 23:53, Joel Cretan <jcretan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM, B00ze/Empire <B00ze64@hotmail.com <mailto:B00ze64@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Who cares that MS doesn't support it. So you are claiming that because it runs on Xp the speed testing is failing? I find that hard to believe.
Everyone using Tor cares. I believe the other posters are seizing on this detail because it is much more important for you to upgrade your vulnerable machine than to worry about what speed is reported. Perhaps it is better for now that your speed is under-reported, to keep too many clients from connecting to a potentially dangerous relay.
I cant upgrade the machine, I'd have to buy hardware and since the machine is 12 years old, I have no intention of replacing the failing parts. I am slowly building a replacement server, but until then, Xp it is. I do not browse, read email, open PDFs, run Flash, install programs - I dont do anything on that server besides running the Tor relay (and polipo) and serving files on the local network. The machine is behind a hardware and a software firewall. The chances of infection is basically zero, so there is no great rush to setup the replacement server. But since everyone just cannot get passed the fact that it runs Xp, I guess we will have to wait some months before I can get some real answers as to the problem I wish resolved. Thank you. Best Regards, -- _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- oO-( )-Oo C Error #009: FATAL! Portable code found!
I don't know the answer to your question and I am sorry that you are having this issue. That said even if you are not doing anything besides running a relay it is a security risk to be running a tor node on Windows XP. There are exploits that do not require any interaction from the user. The sentiment that the rest of the list is trying to impress on you is that by running a Tor nod on XP you are potential putting the entire Tor network at risk to a malicious actor. This is by far a more pressing concern than speeds being reported correctly. As others have said since you say cost is a factor in purchasing a Windows 7 license then install Linux or BSD. I cannot express how easy it is if you follow the guide to set up a Debian node. On 07/21/2014 05:19 PM, B00ze/Empire wrote:
On 2014-07-20 23:53, Joel Cretan <jcretan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM, B00ze/Empire <B00ze64@hotmail.com <mailto:B00ze64@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Who cares that MS doesn't support it. So you are claiming that because it runs on Xp the speed testing is failing? I find that hard to believe.
Everyone using Tor cares. I believe the other posters are seizing on this detail because it is much more important for you to upgrade your vulnerable machine than to worry about what speed is reported. Perhaps it is better for now that your speed is under-reported, to keep too many clients from connecting to a potentially dangerous relay.
I cant upgrade the machine, I'd have to buy hardware and since the machine is 12 years old, I have no intention of replacing the failing parts. I am slowly building a replacement server, but until then, Xp it is. I do not browse, read email, open PDFs, run Flash, install programs - I dont do anything on that server besides running the Tor relay (and polipo) and serving files on the local network. The machine is behind a hardware and a software firewall. The chances of infection is basically zero, so there is no great rush to setup the replacement server.
But since everyone just cannot get passed the fact that it runs Xp, I guess we will have to wait some months before I can get some real answers as to the problem I wish resolved.
Thank you. Best Regards,
-- _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- oO-( )-Oo C Error #009: FATAL! Portable code found!
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:28:42 +0000, Josh wrote: ...
There are exploits that do not require any interaction from the user. The sentiment that the rest of the list is trying to impress on you is that by running a Tor nod on XP you are potential putting the entire Tor network at risk to a malicious actor.
How more so than the malicious actor simply running his own node(s)? Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
I would put the risk about the same. In certain respects it seems more devious to use a compromised node than it does to create your own to do bad stuff. On 07/22/2014 01:38 AM, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:28:42 +0000, Josh wrote: ...
There are exploits that do not require any interaction from the user. The sentiment that the rest of the list is trying to impress on you is that by running a Tor nod on XP you are potential putting the entire Tor network at risk to a malicious actor. How more so than the malicious actor simply running his own node(s)?
Andreas
Not a matter of finance, really. I run Mint 17 on a 12 yr old laptop, 40gb drive - that is one of my two relays. I regularly save the key so when this thing finally goes south, I can have another up in a couple hours. The other relay is on a 8 yr old laptop! These were both dumpster items - cost to me was just time. S On 7/22/2014 at 9:41 AM, "Josh" wrote:I would put the risk about the same. In certain respects it seems more devious to use a compromised node than it does to create your own to do bad stuff. On 07/22/2014 01:38 AM, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:28:42 +0000, Josh wrote: ...
There are exploits that do not require any interaction from the user. The sentiment that the rest of the list is trying to impress on you is that by running a Tor nod on XP you are potential putting the entire Tor network at risk to a malicious actor. How more so than the malicious actor simply running his own node(s)?
Andreas
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sylvain! I can only tell that I deal with a similar question. But at 1st: Please upgrade to an actual Linux or BSD, in your own interest. WinXP is out of date since 4/2014, and the IP of your computer with an outdated OS is published on multiple lists of anonymizing relays. There can't be a better invitation to crackers. Coming from Windows, a user-friendly Linux like Mint or Ubuntu might be a good choice for you (or does anyone here know a /userfriendly/ BSD ? :-) ). The whole OS including the Firewall is pre-configured, there is not much work left. The bandwith: I also run a small internal relay, Ueberwachungsstaat (= surveillance society) in Austria. I found 4 to 5 different numbers for the average bandwidth: - ----- _Empire64_ I Tor Network Map, Vidalia Empire64 (Online) Location: Canada IP Address: 70.81.135.152 Bandwidth: 9.00 KB/s Uptime: 11 hours 38 mins 53 secs Last Updated: 2014-07-19 02:27:25 GMT II Message Log, Vidalia - --> on your relay III Atlas (1) 81.9 kBps IV Onioo (2) 80.0 kBps (advertised) V Blutmagie (3) 3.3 kBps _Ueberwachungsstaat_ I Tor Network Map, Vidalia Ueberwachungsstaat (Online) Location: Austria IP Address: 194.96.5.19 Bandwidth: 12.00 KB/s Uptime: 20 hours 59 mins 23 secs Last Updated: 2014-07-18 17:07:34 GMT II Message Log, Vidalia Jul 19 09:04:34.476 [Notice] Heartbeat: Tor's uptime is 14:01 hours, with 2 circuits open. I've sent 657.26 MB and received 790.30 MB. => Upload 13.3 kBps, Download 16.0 kBps III Atlas (4) 92.7 kBps IV Onioo 92.5 kBps (Advertised) V Blutmagie (6) 1.3 kBps - ----- So the kBps from Blutmagie seem to be too low and Atlas and Onioo to high. Perhaps there the count-logic is different. The most reliable numbers should be the ones calculated from the message log, assuming that Tor counts the bits correctly. Also the number from the Network Map fits well. What works to my experience, when your relay does not do anything at all: Turn it off for one or two days and start it again with changed port numbers. Sometimes my relay forwards only 10 to 20 MB a day, and in that case I try to fix it the prescribed way. Most times it works, sometimes not. I operate it at a simple DSL line of Austrian ISP A1, 8192 kBps D, 768 kBps U. The bandwidth limit is 200 (400) kBps. Why only 6.7 % of the bandwidth limit are used: I just don't know. Best regards, and: Stay wiretapped! Anton 1) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E1DFC86060848E0FDCC7B0F072FA9EBAC639DA... 2) https://onionoo.torproject.org/details?search=empire64 3) https://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=e1dfc86060848e0fdcc7b0f0... 4) https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/4B46A52249A529324B030970E2B39AAEA7A4A7... 5) https://onionoo.torproject.org/details?search=Ueberwachungsstaat 6) https://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=4b46a52249a529324b030970... - -- no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu 0x30C3CDF0, RSA 2048, 24 Mar 2014 0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3 CDF0 Bitmessage (no metadata): BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC On 19/07/14 05:15, B00ze/Empire wrote:
Good day.
I hope this is the correct mailing list for this.
I run a small relay, alias "Empire64" (I tried an exit once, but my IP was then banned at several places, so back to only a relay) on Win Xp. It is very small (bandwidth 80k, burst 160k) but it used to be smaller (64k). Back when it was 64k, I still had a lot of traffic, and in Vidalia's "View the network" list of relays, I was listed as a 64k node. Now that I have increased bandwidth and would like to increase it more depending on how much traffic this creates, I see that no one uses my relay, I have practically no traffic. I think this is because in the "View the network" list, I am listed as a 10k node! I know that Tor has changed since I ran the relay at 64k. If I understand correctly, the Tor network now TESTS for bandwidth before accepting the declared bandwidth in the torRC file. Well obviously, this testing is not working for me. I have "attached" a screenshot of one of the rare times when I do have traffic - as you can see, my node DOES run @ 80k. But, see the other "attached" pic, I am showing in the list as a 10k node. Also, the Atlas shows me as UNNAMMED, I don't understand why, I am the only one with that alias...
Tor80k screenshot: <https://unsee.cc/sumipoge/> (it needs javascript) Tor10k screenshot: <https://unsee.cc/deguzoba/>
Can you guys help me with this? I'd like to contribute to the network but its not working for me now, and besides, the more traffic goes through me, the better it hides my own traffic; I want more :-)
My uptime (from the Atlas): 22 days 3 hours 23 minutes and 16 seconds Fingerprint: E1DFC86060848E0FDCC7B0F072FA9EBAC639DA66 Platform: Tor 0.2.4.21 on Windows XP (updated to 2.4.22 just now)
Thank you. Best Regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTymu9AAoJEMwm4aUww83wvpAIAK/QauPoqM8TSjRYkWcM5cjV cDkYPIdOQKhN/RM4r4KZMBUAMDe5jllpCVGn9lwcPWWBSYcUqgK7C7nMbs4AnPfU 3nNE0Vw3IUkT/2QNeZAMbQF1McyvH5j3gyWMDM6PTXORcIlRRMsc/vp7XvN+qCnb 0W95pAt2kbX1YsQTrNSJVncQf5MEH1LvcLrvPjdCNqQl4utMZsLzn2hX7nljklU0 pwMldEN9/gaIR+ktGlUitdXmtrI2OVGeKoeVsOwPzyPSMhRHjorrjZrQGMhMFcnU LM+dUCuFrg4gMzHmfBAYwignxAPVeSim9jMHAYuYahu5YXTezZiI+dkwjiIvNB8= =YmPj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Good day. On 2014-07-19 08:59, no.thing_to-hide@cryptopathie.eu wrote: | Hello Sylvain! | | I can only tell that I deal with a similar question. | | But at 1st: Please upgrade to an actual Linux or BSD, in your own | interest. WinXP is out of date since 4/2014, and the IP of your | computer with an outdated OS is published on multiple lists of | anonymizing relays. There can't be a better invitation to | crackers. Coming from Windows, a user-friendly Linux like Mint or | Ubuntu might be a good choice for you (or does anyone here know a | /userfriendly/ BSD ? :-) ). The whole OS including the Firewall is | pre-configured, there is not much work left. It's on the todo list to upgrade to Win7 (which by the way is already off "standard" support by MS and onto the "extended" support meaning only security updates from now on; but since I'm not touching Win8 with a long pole, it'll have to be Win7). If I have time I'll multiboot into Linux, we'll see... | _Empire64_ I Vidalia = Bandwidth: 9.00 KB/s II Message Log, Vidalia | -> My msg log doesn't show a "speed" :-( III Atlas (1) 81.9 kBps IV | Onioo (2) 80.0 kBps (advertised) V Blutmagie (3) 3.3 kBps | _Ueberwachungsstaat_ I Tor Network Map, Vidalia = Bandwidth: 12.00 | KB/s II Message Log, Vidalia => Upload 13.3 kBps, Download 16.0 | kBps III Atlas (4) 92.7 kBps IV Onioo 92.5 kBps (Advertised) V | Blutmagie (6) 1.3 kBps You have the same problem I have, the "tested" speed it not correct... | So the kBps from Blutmagie seem to be too low and Atlas and Onioo | to high. Perhaps there the count-logic is different. The most | reliable numbers should be the ones calculated from the message | log, assuming that Tor counts the bits correctly. Also the number | from the Network Map fits well. My message log doesn't show speed, it shows the heartbeat and few other stats every N minutes, but no speed. | What works to my experience, when your relay does not do anything | at all: Turn it off for one or two days and start it again with | changed port numbers. Sometimes my relay forwards only 10 to 20 MB | a day, and in that case I try to fix it the prescribed way. Most | times it works, sometimes not. Oh, traffic does go through my relay, but nothing like before (say, last year) even tho I've increased the allowed bandwidth. And I'm of a mind that I dont see more than 10k/s traffic because the global directory lists me as a 10k/s node :-( - -- ~ _\|/_ Sylvain / B00ze64@hotmail.com ~ (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation-+-Planetary-Society- ~ oO-( )-Oo It's The Borg! QUICK, LOOK USELESS! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTzFc3AAoJEGMH/ZyjTfo5Fa0H/jUMJh/NXKdfBWbWwN9HPrGW TWYdjmrnSlCkaKapevhj+uC9Kn9Mi/G+ilgHR4yEUCkt/s5+OK1nx3WBdT/X/954 TftueobhZNOTk7quMr63OySXhhdNnnJYOKZNu7/6+NGjUGgsCC8tyX+xDm5uIonE y7QlAG62qGjo6pLU/glKkDJ/FK+XHVwUCq827TbYo+45ESx7JjJKS5oC7EuF5FgI XPjDSkbmDDAhiNbWuzBN+Uq58b4BnEQ2Vxgw99QTSjLRc+h8NSZRb0gpLLTz01nI QKsWwQpVwwP1DDviYs5dmTpkcqyKnNPymyFSl3Bi3L1UQvvK2txvDsqPjU76GkA= =43ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (9)
-
Andreas Krey -
B00ze/Empire -
Greg Moss -
Joel Cretan -
Josh -
Matthew Harrold -
no.thing_to-hide＠cryptopathie.eu -
Scott Bennett -
sheldorzone＠hushmail.com