On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM TorGate wrote:
> Hi to all,
> I have a simple question, what is the best firewall solution ?
> With sourcecode and must be opensource.
>
What are you trying to protect? An entire network or a single host?
Q
--
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 08:28, Arisbe wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have run a number of Tor nodes for five years but I started adding a few
> bridges last year. I have one bridge recently installed on a lease VPS that
> has not reported a single inbound connection in over 40 days
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:51:44PM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> FWIW, we collected all feedback from this thread, discussed this change
> in the metrics team, and forwarded our planned change to the Tor
> Research Safety Board. I don't know how fast that will move, but I could
> imagine it's a
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:35, Stijn Jonker wrote:
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to do a call and add some more bandwidth authority
> relays
> during the upcoming meeting in Rome similar to the Montreal meeting.
> Would the following documents still be valid (They themselves state
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:20, MLTorNode wrote:
>
> Mar 04 04:31:37.000 [notice] Your relay has a very large number of
> connections to other relays. Is your outbound address the same as your relay
> address?
Does your NAT box have multiple IP addresses?
Does it have an
Hello all,
I have run a number of Tor nodes for five years but I started adding a
few bridges last year. I have one bridge recently installed on a lease
VPS that has not reported a single inbound connection in over 40 days
(except for Bifroest hanging out). I see up to 4 outbound
Found other ones: December 24 where egress was much higher then
ingress (but crypto-workers were pegged, not main thread). December
28 & 29, attack like today. Feburary 1 & 2, like today with ingress
higher than egress.
In today's and the latter-two above the main event thread was pegged
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 03/04/2018 07:41 PM, Dhalgren Tor wrote:
>> the main event-worker thread
>> going from a normal load level of about 30%/core to 100%/core and
>> staying there for about 30 seconds;
> I do wonder if this is just
On 03/04/2018 07:41 PM, Dhalgren Tor wrote:
> the main event-worker thread
> going from a normal load level of about 30%/core to 100%/core and
> staying there for about 30 seconds;
I do wonder if this is just the normal behaviour when - IIRC correctly -
consensus documents are compressed before
Upgraded exit to 0.3.3.3 and now seeing a curious CPU saturation
attack. Whatever the cause, result is the main event-worker thread
going from a normal load level of about 30%/core to 100%/core and
staying there for about 30 seconds; then CPU consumption declines back
to 30%. Gradual change on
Hi Teor & Others,
Thanks for your response,
On 2 Mar 2018, at 23:26, teor wrote:
> > On 3 Mar 2018, at 02:15, Stijn Jonker wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Mar 2018, at 12:08, Vasilis wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Roger Dingledine:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:47:00PM +, nusenu wrote:
>>
nusenu ha scritto il 03/03/2018 alle 20:03:
>
>
> MLTorNode:
>> Is it possibile? I have one dynamic public IP with one relay server
published on
>> ORPort 443 and DIRport 80 (with IPv6 ORPort too).
>> Can i add a second relay with OR and DIR natted on other ports
published on the
>> same IP
Hi,
*UPDATE**
I'm still seeing these warning messages but in a lower frequency:
Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit creation requests! Please
consider using the MaxAdvertisedBandwidth config option or choosing a more
restricted exit policy. [1077 similar message(s) suppressed in
13 matches
Mail list logo