On 3/11/18 10:15, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 03/11/2018 09:44 AM, nusenu wrote:
>> 33% of guard capacity and 37% of consensus weight is running on tor versions
>> with DoS mitigation features.
>>
> But there was no abrupt change around that time where the # user users droped
> down - so there'S
On 03/11/2018 09:44 AM, nusenu wrote:
> 33% of guard capacity and 37% of consensus weight is running on tor versions
> with DoS mitigation features.
>
But there was no abrupt change around that time where the # user users droped
down - so there'S no strong correlation IMO.
--
Toralf
PGP
> But https://metrics.torproject.org/versions.html doesn't show a
> strong correlation in decrease/increase of a specific Tor version so
> I do wonder how to interrprete the user numbers.
33% of guard capacity and 37% of consensus weight is running on tor versions
with DoS mitigation features.
On 03/11/2018 08:33 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:16:52AM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues.
>
> Early indications are that the overloaders have stopped. At least
> for now, but hopefully for longer.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:16:52AM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues.
Early indications are that the overloaders have stopped. At least
for now, but hopefully for longer.
Cc'ing torservers for bridge OutboundBindAddrrss, and Mike for vanguards.
Here are the mitigations again:
> o Major features:
>- Give relays some defenses against the recent network overload. We
> start with three defenses (default parameters in parentheses).
> First: if a single
I've updated my entire fleet
(https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/family:2F9A6B5ADBE91EC69F55AAFB7DC49619D31B8324)
today around 11:30AM to 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev (git-d1c2597096cac27e) and so
far it looks like the mitigations are working nicely. Pretty graphs
supporting that claim:
On 01 Feb (04:01:10), grarpamp wrote:
> > Applications that use a lot of resources will have to rate-limit themselves.
> > Otherwise, relays will rate-limit them.
>
> It's possible if relays figure that stuff by #2 might not be
> an attack per se, but could be user activities... that relays
>
> Applications that use a lot of resources will have to rate-limit themselves.
> Otherwise, relays will rate-limit them.
It's possible if relays figure that stuff by #2 might not be
an attack per se, but could be user activities... that relays
might push back on that one by...
- Seeking
> On 1 Feb 2018, at 18:59, grarpamp wrote:
>
> Has #2 been eval regarding onion indexing engines, oniontorrent, etc?
> They use a lot of resources for agnostic purposes.
> Censoring them as collateral damage would be bad.
Applications that use a lot of resources will have
Has #2 been eval regarding onion indexing engines, oniontorrent, etc?
They use a lot of resources for agnostic purposes.
Censoring them as collateral damage would be bad.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Hi everbody
Am 31-Jan-18 um 10:16 schrieb Roger Dingledine:
> now is a great time to try it and let us know of
> problems and/or successes.
Currently just success. NTor is still pretty high, circuits and TAP
'normal'. cpu is difficult to say, still pumping lots of circuits
anyway. Settings are
On 01/31/2018 10:16 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> the sort who enjoys running code from git, now is a great time to try it
> and let us know of problems and/or successes.
>
tor-0.3.3.1-alpha-58-ga846fd267 is bad here, the inbound connections stays at
5-10
tor-0.3.3.1-alpha-42-g2294e330b works
On 01/31/2018 08:57 PM, Tyler Johnson wrote:
> with or without additional firewall
*with* additional firewall rules currently.
--
Toralf
PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
at a first glance master (tor-0.3.3.1-alpha-42-g2294e330b) works like a
charm here at a hardened stable Gentoo with vanilla kernel 4.14.16 at both
Tor exit relays
Is that with or without additional firewall rules to combat the abundant
connection issues?
On 01/31/2018 10:16 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> but if you're
> the sort who enjoys running code from git, now is a great time to try it
> and let us know of problems and/or successes.
at a first glance master (tor-0.3.3.1-alpha-42-g2294e330b) works like a charm
here at a hardened stable Gentoo
teor:
>
>
>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 20:37, nusenu wrote:
>>
>>> We've merged https://bugs.torproject.org/24902 into tor git master.
>>> ...
>
> If you compile using clang, there are some warnings that appear to be
> harmless:
>
> On 31 Jan 2018, at 20:37, nusenu wrote:
>
>> We've merged https://bugs.torproject.org/24902 into tor git master.
>> ...
If you compile using clang, there are some warnings that appear to be
harmless:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25094
The overall
nusenu:
> And packages for Debian-based OSes are probably in the next nightly master
> builds
> available at https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/
I just added support for tor nightly build repos to ansible-relayor
(Debian/Ubuntu only),
to make it very easy to test bleeding edge
Woo, for sure!
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 03:16, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues.
>
> We've merged https://bugs.torproject.org/24902 into tor git master. We'll
> be putting out an 0.3.3.2-alpha release in not too long
> Thanks for your patience with the relay overload issues.
>
> We've merged https://bugs.torproject.org/24902 into tor git master. We'll
> be putting out an 0.3.3.2-alpha release in not too long for wider testing,
> and eventually backporting it all the way back to 0.2.9, but if you're
> the sort
21 matches
Mail list logo