Conrad Rockenhaus:
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:21 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>
>>> never relied on the OS Package of Tor, mainly because OS’s OpenSSL versions
>>> are behind the current version of OpenSSL, so I normally compile Tor against
>>> the latest OpenSSL. Example, FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE has O
> On 7. Sep 2019, at 12:20, teor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 20:14, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
>>> Where does the security weakpoint risk come from? Does
>>> apt-transport-tor/onion service repository availability help in your
>>> mind here?
>>
>> As with adding any third-party reposit
My relays track current stable, though I prefer going slow updating unless a
major CVE/TROVE lands.
LTS is beneficial for many reasons and, from the enthused developer perspective
perhaps best viewed as "necessary evil."
Rather than thinking about killing LTS, is better to think about ways to
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 20:20:06 +1000
teor wrote:
> > As with adding any third-party repository, it means trusting the repository
> > provider to install and run any root-privilege code on the machine. In case
> > the repository server (or actually the release process, including signing)
> > is
> >
> Unfortunately, we still have something like 2500 relays on either Tor
> 0.2.9-LTS or Tor 0.3.5-LTS.
>
> What are the reasons for this? My guess is the top 5 most common
> responses are:
>
> 1. "I didn't know that Debian's backports repo has latest-stable Tor!"
> 2. "I didn't see the Tor Project
Hi
Am Do., 5. Sept. 2019 um 04:12 Uhr schrieb Mike Perry <
mikepe...@torproject.org>:
> How can we fix that for you, or at least, how can we make it easier to
> run the very latest stable series Tor on your relay?
>
When i started my first relay i had zero knowledge about Linux so i can
describe
Hi,
On 6 Sep 2019, at 20:14, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>> Where does the security weakpoint risk come from? Does
>> apt-transport-tor/onion service repository availability help in your
>> mind here?
>
> As with adding any third-party repository, it means trusting the repository
> provider to install
On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 02:20:00 +
Mike Perry wrote:
> >> 2. "I didn't see the Tor Project repos mentioned in Tor's Relay docs!"
> >
> > I was using them in the past, but then decided not to, as it's adding some
> > management overhead and also one more potential security weakpoint.
>
> These t
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:21 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>
>> never relied on the OS Package of Tor, mainly because OS’s OpenSSL versions
>> are behind the current version of OpenSSL, so I normally compile Tor against
>> the latest OpenSSL. Example, FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE has OpenSSL
>> 1.1.1a-freebsd, whi
Hi all,
> On 6 Sep 2019, at 12:20, Mike Perry wrote:
>
> Roman Mamedov:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 02:11:00 +
>> Mike Perry wrote:
>>
>>> 1. "I didn't know that Debian's backports repo has latest-stable Tor!"
>>
>> I only looked to backports when I get a warning on the metrics website tha
> never relied on the OS Package of Tor, mainly because OS’s OpenSSL versions
> are behind the current version of OpenSSL, so I normally compile Tor against
> the latest OpenSSL. Example, FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE has OpenSSL
> 1.1.1a-freebsd, which generates a slight crypto error during the startup of
Roman Mamedov:
>
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 02:11:00 +
> Mike Perry wrote:
>
>> 1. "I didn't know that Debian's backports repo has latest-stable Tor!"
>
> I only looked to backports when I get a warning on the metrics website that my
> versions are not recommended. Aside from that, I thought tha
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 11:44 AM, Matt Traudt wrote:
>
> On 9/4/19 22:43, teor wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Here's some other reasons that might affect a few operators:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2019, at 12:11, Mike Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we still have something like 2500 relays on either Tor
>
On 9/4/19 22:43, teor wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Here's some other reasons that might affect a few operators:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2019, at 12:11, Mike Perry wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, we still have something like 2500 relays on either Tor
>> 0.2.9-LTS or Tor 0.3.5-LTS.
>>
>> What are the reasons for this?
On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 02:11:00 +
Mike Perry wrote:
> 1. "I didn't know that Debian's backports repo has latest-stable Tor!"
I only looked to backports when I get a warning on the metrics website that my
versions are not recommended. Aside from that, I thought that running LTS on
relays is actu
Hi,
On 5 Sep 2019, at 13:01, Mike Perry wrote:
>> 8. I am maintaining research or other patches against tor, and rebases
>> are difficult
>
> Again, common? I'm going to guess not common (or self-supporting), but
> this does feel like something we could measure by checking for git
> versions
teor:
>> On 5 Sep 2019, at 12:11, Mike Perry wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, we still have something like 2500 relays on either Tor
>> 0.2.9-LTS or Tor 0.3.5-LTS.
>>
>> What are the reasons for this? My guess is the top 5 most common
>> responses are:
>>
>> 1. "I didn't know that Debian's backports re
Hi Mike,
Here's some other reasons that might affect a few operators:
> On 5 Sep 2019, at 12:11, Mike Perry wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, we still have something like 2500 relays on either Tor
> 0.2.9-LTS or Tor 0.3.5-LTS.
>
> What are the reasons for this? My guess is the top 5 most common
> resp
Hello relay operators,
Thanks for running relays, and thanks to those of you who are moving off
of our old EOL Tor versions. Thanks especially to those of you who moved
directly to Tor 0.4.1!
We would like to transition the LTS Tor to be for use in
edge/client/non-relay infrastructure only. We wo
19 matches
Mail list logo
