Re: [tor-relays] significance of different bandwidth values

2013-10-31 Thread starlight . 2013q4
At 16:19 10/15/2013 -0400, starli...@binnacle.cx wrote: >Question: > >What the difference between the bandwidth >value given by > getinfo ns/name/x > >>> w Bandwidth=297 >and > getinfo dir/server/authority > >>> bandwidth 30 375000 335872 Since no one answered the question and I no

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Gordon Morehouse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Roger Dingledine: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 06:12:47PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote: >> That's correct, it takes a deliberate action on the part of the >> administrator to become a relay; and another deliberate action to >> become an exit relay. > >

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Andy Isaacson
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:52:41PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 06:12:47PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote: > > That's correct, it takes a deliberate action on the part of the > > administrator to become a relay; and another deliberate action to become > > an exit relay. > >

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 06:12:47PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote: > That's correct, it takes a deliberate action on the part of the > administrator to become a relay; and another deliberate action to become > an exit relay. Actually, that second part isn't true. Once you decide to become a relay, the

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Andy Isaacson
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 12:53:48AM +, Paritesh Boyeyoko wrote: > On a related note, just out of interest why was the decision taken that the > default exit policy for an out-of-the-box relay allows any exits at all? Out of the box, relays don't allow exit at all. A relay admin has to explici

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Paritesh Boyeyoko
On Thursday 31 Oct 2013 15:34:20 Andreas Krey wrote: > On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:43:41 +, Paritesh Boyeyoko wrote: > ... > > > This is something which has always confused/annoyed me. How can a Tor > > node > > (unless it's exposing its SOCKS interface to the whole world) be classed > > as an "op

[tor-relays] Cisco ASA

2013-10-31 Thread starlight . 2013q4
For anyone running a Cisco ASA between their 'tor' relay and the Internet, some potentially useful info: The default ASA connection timeout is short and often results in 'telnet' sessions through VPN tunnels getting whacked. So one might add timeout conn 48:00:00 to a config to mitigate that

Re: [tor-relays] running Tor relay live with AddressSanitizer

2013-10-31 Thread starlight . 2013q4
At 18:14 10/24/2013 -0400, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: >Has anyone tried running a live relay with >an image built using GCC 4.8 and >-fsanitize=address? Took an initial jab at it by compiling just 'tor' with CFLAGS = -g -O1 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector

Re: [tor-relays] max TCP interruption before Tor circuit teardown?

2013-10-31 Thread Gordon Morehouse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tor CPU usage has dropped way back to 15-40% in the last few minutes, even as I was increasing my total inbound connection limit to 150 connections. This is a hell of a log line on a Raspberry Pi, which also just popped out: Oct 31 10:13:49.000 [no

Re: [tor-relays] max TCP interruption before Tor circuit teardown?

2013-10-31 Thread Gordon Morehouse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I've just seen the most amazing headshot of my Tor relay by a sudden massive SYN flood yet. I was online and started noticing problems with DNS on my local router. I checked my so-called monitoring setup, a window with a permanent ping to my router,

Re: [tor-relays] max TCP interruption before Tor circuit teardown?

2013-10-31 Thread David Serrano
On 2013-10-29 08:00:53 (-0700), Gordon Morehouse wrote: > > Currently this is how it works: > > 1. accept to the 3/sec burst 6, then reject (iptables) > 2. 4 logs of iptables reject in 75 sec = 90 sec ban (fail2ban) > > I'd love to do all of the above purely in iptables and eliminate > fail2ban,

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Andreas Krey
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:43:41 +, Paritesh Boyeyoko wrote: ... > This is something which has always confused/annoyed me. How can a Tor node > (unless it's exposing its SOCKS interface to the whole world) be classed as > an > "open proxy"? The 'open proxy' is simply a tag on the IP address; i

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Runa A. Sandvik
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Tom Ritter wrote: > On 29 October 2013 22:53, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: >> Yes, to some extent. I edited the config, as I was willing to pay for the >> extra bandwidth, and enabled an Exit Relay. >> >> I was under the impression that this was permitted. > > Amazon do

Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report

2013-10-31 Thread Paritesh Boyeyoko
On Wednesday 30 Oct 2013 08:43:21 Tom Ritter wrote: > On 29 October 2013 22:53, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > > Yes, to some extent. I edited the config, as I was willing to pay for the > > extra bandwidth, and enabled an Exit Relay. > > > > I was under the impression that this was permitted. > > Amaz