On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:20:18PM -0400, cmeclax-sazri wrote:
Uploading large files sounds likely to me. Another possibility is that it's
running a hidden download server that a lot of people are downloading from.
Good point -- this could be a hidden service and you're actually seeing
traffic
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:17:13AM -0400, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 21:30:59 Rick Huebner wrote:
way of using Tor as a client. How can I run the TBB on my system
without interfering with my relay?
TBB supports randomized socks port and control port
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 08:09:31PM +1100, tony wrote:
In the Tor logs for a relay, I get the following message:
Dec 19 19:42:23.662 [notice] Renaming old configuration file to
/etc/tor/torrc.orig.1
Dec 19 19:42:23.662 [warn] Couldn't rename configuration file
/etc/tor/torrc to
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:35:30PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
New operator of a Tor bridge here. How can I tell that it is being used?
With a regular relay I can look up the stats on TorStatus, or I can see
that there are n current connections. But a bridge won't be published,
and the
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:49:45AM +, Geoff Down wrote:
Hi,
the read/write graphs in my relay's TorStatus.blutmagie.de page have
been broken for some time (flat-lined) but I assumed that was down to
my old software. However, I see that all the relays' pages are the
same. Is this data
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:36:57PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
This application claims to identify bad Tor nodes for the purpose of
excluding them from use:
http://xqz3u5drneuzhaeo.onion/users/badtornodes/
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
In general it is a poor plan to change your
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:02:46PM -0500, Sambuddho Chakravarty wrote:
The section on Performance data in the Tor metrics page
https://metrics.torproject.org/data.html , says that you are recording data
by running Torperf on 'moria', 'torperf' and 'siv'. I know 'moria' is a
exit node. But
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:29:08PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
Has there been a change in the routing algorithm, or any other network
changes that might explain this drop?
I opened https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5755 for a
related topic that I think will help answer questions
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Julian Wissmann wrote:
we've got an offer for 10GBit
unmetered@750?, which is kind of sweet spot performance/buck wise and I
guess, that it could handle 8-12 Tor nodes performance wise to satisfy
the pipe. It would be a large number of high performance
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better
load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can
handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay
diversity: on
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:34:14PM +0100, mick wrote:
We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/),
and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to
sponsor 125+ fast exits.
Forgive me, but what do they want in return? (He who pays the
piper...)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:49:34AM -0400, Motoko Kusanagi wrote:
I am very interested in running 100 Mbit (maybe even more) exit nodes at
100$/month, however, a question immediately comes to mind:
When we say 100Mbit exit node, do we imply really unmetered traffic at
100 Mbit, or do we mean
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Andrew Beveridge wrote:
- What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth
do you get for that?
This is a complicated question, because I run a single Tor exit in a VPS on
my company dedicated server. I run a local company
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:58:54AM +0200, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
You ask volunteers to achieve a funders goal. Those might run a bridge
already, but un-publish it. Less bridges for the rest. They could run
relays and turn them into unpublished bridges. Less relays for anyone.
Running
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:25:40AM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
ON Saturday, August 11. 2012, 18:25:03 Roger Dingledine wrote:
The constraints are:
* 100mbit+ connectivity, though in practice I expect they will spend
most of their time doing far less than that.
* No more than 2 bridges per /24
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:00:56PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines
Comments? Do you want to see something else in an article that says Tor
Exit Guidelines?
Thanks!
I've updated the page to include some more suggestions. Please
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:15:46AM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
It would be good to add the exit IP to services that allow Tor Exits
to register to proactively stop abuse emails.
http://www.blocklist.de is one I had to add mine to within the first month.
Is this generally accepted as a good
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:25:59PM +0200, tagnaq wrote:
It is quite sad that one has to find out about 'critical' security
updates [0] via an unrelated thread on tor-talk [1] or the blog [2]
instead of getting an announcement on tor-announce [3] - where relay
operators are probably expecting
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:28:30AM -0700, Brock Tice wrote:
Hello all,
I follow the guide for avoiding abuse notices, and generally I only
get 1/year of the DMCA variety. However, I recently received this
complaint, which appears to show spam originating from my Tor server
(209.188.113.101
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:21PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
On Friday, January 4, 2013 3:38pm, mick m...@rlogin.net said:
[snip]
Thanks for the pointer - but yes, I'd prefer to stay away from the US.
I think the US is probably already well served with tor nodes.
Yes, about 25% of all
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:41:54PM +, Chris Baines wrote:
I am having some problems with tor (version 0.2.3.25-1), I get
warnings when it resumes form hibernation:
Feb 11 00:00:00.000 [warn] Could not bind to 0.0.0.0:80: Permission denied
Feb 11 00:00:00.000 [notice] Opening OR listener on
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:54:59PM +, Matt Joyce wrote:
I'm a little confused though for some reason only two of the instances
show up in atlas, the other one just keeps complaining it isn't in the
cached consensus and isn't seeing any usage either consensus health over
at metrics mentions
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:09PM +0100, Moritz Bartl wrote:
On 12.03.2013 08:41, jv...@altsci.com wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone receives a large number of DMCA infringement
notices and whether there was a resolution.
We do. Given that none of the regular DMCA complaint companies were
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:26PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
Mar 12 16:13:57.000 [warn] Received http status code 504 (Gateway Time-out)
from server '154.35.32.5:80' while fetching consensus directory.
I've seen several reports of that lately. I assume Sina's directory
authority is
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:09:44AM +0200, Dennis Ljungmark wrote:
You should be able to use normal ulimit style settings, Limiting open
files count (a socket is an open file).
Yes, you can do this, but it will degrade your relay (and hurt the
network) because it will unpredictably hang up on
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:45:03PM -0700, Daniel Wu wrote:
There are these connections, from 127.0.0.1 back to itself. Some sort of
internal process used by Tor? Not as concerned about these, since these
are internal. But still curious.
TCP 127.0.0.1:63417 127.0.0.1:63418 ESTABLISHED
TCP
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:20:02AM -, te...@tormail.org wrote:
I've been seeing these storms as well on my relay. I average something
like 100 connections for weeks and weeks per the tor logs, but then
suddenly it will jump into the thousands and I'll see the Failed to hand
off onionskin.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:43:00PM +0100, Nick wrote:
I have a reasonable ADSL connection, and a little always-on server.
The bandwidth is in the region of 2Mib/s down, something less up
(maybe 256Kib/s). Is it useful for me to run a tor relay with this
bandwidth? I'd like to run one which
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:13:09PM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:03:58 +, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
It'd be nice if dynamic DNS could solve this somehow, but it can't with
the current implementation. :/
Even if - it wouldn't help those users that have an open
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Tom McLoughlin wrote:
I'm looking for a VPS to run a tor exit node on, any ideas?
Be sure to check out the wiki page:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISPs
for what others have said in the past.
And if you have anything to add or
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:41:39PM +0800, TonyXue wrote:
Hi,
Today when I was using htop to check my Tor server. I found that Tor was
running as /usr/sbin/tor --defaults-torrc
/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush which seems Tor is not
using the configuration file
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Tor Exit wrote:
Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
their node with their own moral beliefs?
I really would like to support this if I could.
Specifically, I'd love a way for exit relay operators to only allow
people to do
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:30:33PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
On 13-08-29 10:35 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
What on earth is causing so many circuit creation requests in such a
short timespan?
One possibility, if i recall correctly, is that the Tor that comes with
the PirateBrowser
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 06:57:38PM -0800, I wrote:
Hej,brbrOn trying to get a non-exit relay going on a cheap VPS Vidalia
saysbrSep 02 03:48:32.146 [Warning] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time
from server at 128.31.0.34:9101.nbsp; It seems that our clock is ahead by 9
hours, 0 minutes,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:57:24PM +0200, Niels Hesse wrote:
Oh, okay.
Thank you for your answer.
I really hope this will be resolved somehow.
Keep an eye on
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9657
if you want to follow along.
--Roger
Hi folks,
I just released 0.2.4.17-rc. Hopefully there will be debs of it soon.
It comes with a new feature:
- Relays now process the new NTor circuit-level handshake requests
with higher priority than the old TAP circuit-level handshake
requests. We still process some TAP
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:54:57AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
In my spare time I'm also working on a blog post to explain what's going
on and what measures we're taking to keep things afloat.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/how-to-handle-millions-new-tor-clients
--Roger
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:16:51PM -0400, t...@t-3.net wrote:
I updated our node to the RC version some days ago. Earlier today,
it started to do a traffic amount that was higher than it had been
configured to do in torrc. Torrc was configured for 35M use and 40M
burst, but today it went to
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:00:08PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
MB (capital B) = Megabyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte
Mb (small b) = Megabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabit
But torrc does not support specifying rate limits in megabits anyway.
In 0.2.5 (aka git master
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:23:12PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
I scrapped my previous exit node and set up a new one on a different
machine. It's been running for 6 and a half hours, but does not have the
exit flag. The logs say both my ORPort and DirPort are reachable from the
outside, and
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Stephan wrote:
On 11.09.2013 10:05, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
Sep 10 08:59:40.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new
connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit
now.
I'm just taking a wild guess here,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10:07AM -0600, Jesse Victors wrote:
Do I have to maintain an uptime of ~70 days to see fully utilization
then? This relay is on a personal computer with a static IP, so it isn't
on a dedicated server or anything like that. Usually my uptime is around
several weeks
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:08:58PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
I was using arm when I noticed this line:
173.79.154.243 -- 173.79.154.243 (us) Purpose:
Ags=is_internal,need_capacity, Circuit ID: 5
4.0m (CIRCUIT)
That's
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:50:46AM -0700, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
The replay has settled into a fairly steady state (after losing its
flags except Named) of sending 5-10KB more per sec than it gets. I
have a feeling this is literally due to the TAP replies being bigger
than the TAP requests.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:10:25AM -0400, t...@t-3.net wrote:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only
reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is
ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no
chance at anonymity
Think
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Christian Dietrich wrote:
Now my problem is that tor relay #2 generates almost no traffic.
https://atlas.torproject.org/#search/myTOR
Log Relay #2:
Circuit handshake stats since last time: 63/63 TAP, 1/1 NTor.
Heartbeat: Tor's uptime
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:20:18PM -0400, Michael Gorbach wrote:
Nope, I don?t have any special pluggable transports configured in my
torrc, which is odd. What other processes would for be starting kicking
off? All I have set in torrc is [...] PortForwarding
That's likely the one!
You might be
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:56:22AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Just check out the idkneitzel Node.
You are not running an Exit node, all of this is irrelevant to you.
Right.
But for those here who are wondering about running large exit relays,
check out
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0500, David Carlson wrote:
Considering
more sophisticated methods to detect and differentiate legitimate
activity from nefarious activity would be too difficult, i suppose.
The step after that is when they intentionally over-list in order to try
to
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:08:27PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
Once the network gets big enough so that each node and client doesnt
know all the nodes ip addresses, is there a compelling reason that ip
addresses of relays which are non-exit and non-guard need to be
published to the outside
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:19:42PM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am seeing many of these messages in the logs of torland1/torland2:
Sep 21 12:09:34.000 [warn] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server
at 76.73.17.194:9090. It seems that our clock is ahead by 15969 days, 10
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0800, I wrote:
Why not?
I've been running a middle relay for years in my private net behind one
adress. no problems there. You should just never run an exit relay there.
EFF recommends against it in their Legal FAQ:
Should I run an exit relay from my
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:37:55AM +0200, nsane wrote:
Hello,
there is a Tor setting MaxOnionQueueDelay in torrc (see
https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual-dev.html.en) with a default
of 1750 msec.
As operator of a Tor relay 0.2.4.17-rc (on Debian) I would like to know
were I can
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:26:52PM +0100, Chris Whittleston wrote:
So I just started running a non-exit relay on a Raspberry Pi, and have hit
a problem where it seems huge numbers of circuits are being created which
overwhelms the system and can cause tor to crash. I read here (
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Chris Whittleston wrote:
Aha - makes sense, I'll just build it myself. Thanks for the quick response.
So - the new handshake in 0.2.4.x doesn't help with the ongoing issues? On
that page I linked it was suggested it might...
It does help! It helps
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:08:52AM -0700, Moritz Bartl wrote:
The current routing algorithm is not utilizing low-bandwidth
relays as well as it should. This is a known problem but difficult to
solve. If you can provide below 10 Mbit/s, it might be better for
now to
go with a bridge instead
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:10:15PM -0400, Christopher Jones wrote:
Suggestions are welcome. I?m running with the default exit node policy,
which should block most of the abuse-laden ports. BitTorrent?s a little
harder to deal with. I?ve no qualms working with the ISP to mitigate
their concerns,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:03:27AM -0400, Christopher Jones wrote:
I just wanted to thank the list members for giving me some great advice
on working with my ISP to deal with the DMCA nastygrams. I restricted
my exit policy to allow most legitimate TCP services and block the rest,
which should
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
With the slower computers, sometimes too many attempts to connect to
the ORPort (I am almost positive as part of TAP circuit building, but
not *really* sure) can eventually cause Tor to consume more physmem
than available and
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
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:58:20PM -0500, gq wrote:
On the Message Log console I was seeing hourly entries for TAP and
nTor connections.
Yep.
After over a week, I was getting very low traffic, so rolled back to
the stable version vidalia-relay-bundle-0.2.3.25-0.2.21-2.exe to
compare, trying
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:14:15AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
People, can we please mind using the proper units.
I know Tor doesn't make it easy because Tor itself incorrectly
uses Bytes. But Tor is a network application, and real network
apps are measured in 'bits per second'
I understand your
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:08:48AM +1100, Mark Jamsek wrote:
Dec 02 15:49:34.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort
110.146.133.98:9001 and DirPort 110.146.133.98:9030 are
reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes --
[snip]
Apart from the DNS hijacking entry(?), Tor is apparently up and
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 10:32:09PM +0100, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
Your system is now lsted:
ec2bridgerocks001
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/50855F45464DBE84E917B0ED74E2144E785BA024
It appears that you're running a *relay* on EC2?
With a nickname implying that you think it's a
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 02:10:21PM +0100, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
Another possiblity: Advertised Bandwith in Globe shows not the
limit but my actual traffic. That is incidentally 1/8 of the maximum. :-)
I think that's it. See also
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:33:21PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
The consensus weight is computed using
a) the relay's self-advertised bandwidth in its descriptor:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/dir-spec.txt#l389
b) the ratios of bandwidth weights for various types
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0500, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
Also keep in mind that what the bandwidth
authorities actually measure is not total capacity
but spare stream capacity (by downloading large
files through at least 5 different two hop
circuits times for each relay).
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:10:57AM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote:
Along with my recent OS upgrade I have also updated my tor relay from
0.2.4.3-alpha to 0.2.4.20. The latter version write two identical copies
of every message to the log file. I have only one uncommented Log line
in my
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:34:49AM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote:
Assuming that the tor browser is still a fork off of firefox from a few
years ago, then I'd still like to build it using local tuning. firefox is
such a CPU hog that I'd really like to get the most out of compiler
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 01:22:47AM -0700, Jesse Victors wrote:
Thanks again guys for the help. usuexit is now online, and should be
functioning properly, but there seem to be a few mystifying issues:
1) TorStatus marks it as hibernating which it clearly isn't; it's
online and accepting
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:15:11AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I'm on Debian and did a service tor reload (not restart) and tor
crashed! I didn't realise immediately, took may be a minute to realise
and restart. Anyway apologies to any connections that were going
through this relay.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2014-02-27 23:12, Greg W wrote:
I turned on some logging on my firewall today to help troubleshoot and
issue and noticed a load of connections from external addresses to port
9050 on my exit node. I don't think that should be
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:22:10AM -0600, Greg W wrote:
Roger,
You've confirmed my thoughts. I suspected that some people were bulk
scanning relays/exits looking for open proxies too which is why I was
curious if any other operators were seeing this. Thus far today I've got
175,000
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:26:07PM +0100, Oliver Schönefeld wrote:
i updated from Tor 0.2.3.25 (relay 266C0CADC79F802C554019887324A57332A1DA70)
to Tor 0.2.4.21 yesterday and the relay fingerprint changed to
07E333A3B979C27739096C5B2EE10D7C8E3D8FFD.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33:01PM +0100, Rick Ross wrote:
Question how long you'll stay in the Top 50. Maybe you are lucky but
probably the ISP will end your contract for abusing fair use
policies/TOS. Best case they'll throttle you down. Let us know in 30 days :)
Or maybe more than 30 days
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:03:43PM -0700, Lance Hathaway wrote:
On the plus side, obfs3 is still pretty strong, and it's one of the
common pluggable transports right now. Scramblesuit is not live in the
official bundles yet (AFAIK), but it just released and has some pretty
robust-looking
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
I would like to be an exit for port 8333 only. I have configured my relay
to do this, but I am not being listed with the relay flag and do not see
any traffic exiting my node (at least not using arm). I saw an FAQ that
says this is
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 05:02:07PM -0400, Tora Tora Tora wrote:
Declining dramatically
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/90743CFA1B93295B9334CC0C625D22990AABA25F
vs
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/CC2F7C6ED12B67CB3882B98213E02DEF2CB82293
that is holding steady
A fine
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 08:46:44PM +, eugene zhukovsky wrote:
I am trying to setup Tor relaying, but it doesn't work so far.
Windows 8, private vpn.
I opened ports 80,443,9001 and 9030 (both TCP and UDP) on my Comcast router
to be forwarded to the box I'm trying to configure.
I added
Hi Christian, other tor relay fans,
I'm looking for some volunteers, hopefully including Christian, to work
on metrics and visualization of impact from new relays.
We're working with EFF to do another Tor relay challenge [*], to both
help raise awareness of the value of Tor, and encourage many
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:36:06AM +0300, r...@goodvikings.com wrote:
It's on that list since at some point a botnet talking through tor to
its CC server used my exit node to do so
Actually, it could easily have been a computer security researcher who
used Tor to access that address, not
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 11:21:02AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The Debian install script evidently gives tor 30 seconds to
disconnect, since it did stop tor after 30 seconds.
This is actually Tor's behavior. From the man page:
ShutdownWaitLength NUM
When we get a SIGINT
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 08:45:23PM +, Delton Barnes wrote:
Two sources familiar with matter could merely be two computer security
experts who have an unsubstantiated opinion that the NSA was exploiting
this beforehand. We have no idea how credible these sources are.
I agree.
I'm assuming
Hi folks,
I'm attaching the list of relay identity fingerprints that I'm
rejecting on moria1 as of yesterday.
I got the list from Sina's scanner:
https://encrypted.redteam.net/bleeding_edges/
I thought for a while about taking away their Valid flag rather
than rejecting them outright, but this
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 08:03:51PM -0700, Andrea Shepard wrote:
http://charon.persephoneslair.org/~andrea/private/hb-fingerprints-20140417002500.txt
The SHA-256 hash of that file, for the sake of stating it under a PGP
signature, is:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:17:02AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Thanks Andrea. 374 of the 380 lines from Sina's file overlap with yours.
I've moved moria1 to reject the union of the two lists.
Four other directory authority operators have also blacklisted these keys,
and they've now been
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 09:19:26AM -0700, kbesig wrote:
Install of tor-arm went well enough, no error msg's.
~$ sudo -u debian-tor arm
You're using arm dangerously. See item #14 on
https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-relay-debian
for the safer way to run arm with your Debian / Ubuntu relay.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 02:15:52PM -0800, I wrote:
Wow, I always thought that *was* the safe way to run arm. I wonder
where we both got the advice to do it the dangerous way.
from ARM
[ARM_NOTICE] Arm is currently running with root permissions. This is not a
good idea, and will
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 01:36:53PM +, Nusenu wrote:
Question arisen from looking at the relays by version graph:
If you look at that graph you see that on 2014-04-08 the number of
relays (in the consensus) running 0.2.2.x were about zero,
and now (2014-04-21) we are back at about 170
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 08:51:57PM +0200, Tim Semeijn wrote:
It looks like your node is running as guard. This usually drops your traffic
for a while before it builds up again.
Tim is referring to the phenomenon described here:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/lifecycle-of-a-new-relay
And
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:16:56PM -0300, Noilson Caio wrote:
Block all output like http and smtp in my netfilter (Gnu Linux);
-A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 110 -j DROP
etc ..
Relays need to allow connections to all outgoing ports.
If you do
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:01:19AM -0700, Adam Brenner wrote:
For IPv4 I am running a Reduced Exit Policy[1]. Those entries are in
my torrc file, however, Atlas is showing none of those policies[2]!
Really?
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/6269EC22B7970ACDE4AF09F6ADE67CEB0C7F7964
looks
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:17:17PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 22:51:49 -0700
Adam Brenner a...@aeb.io wrote:
I have setup a Tor exit node and IPv4 appears to work (will get a real
test in the next 48 hours). I would like to confirm my IPv6 setup as I
have found the
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:30:08PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Relays need to allow connections to all outgoing ports.
If you do lines like the above, your Tor relay will be unable to reach
other Tor relays that chose port 80 or port 110 for their ORPort or
their DirPort. (People choose
What is the best way to run a relay on OS X currently?
Now that the Vidalia bundles are deprecated and hard to find, I believe
we have no packages or bundles for OS X other than TBB 3.x?
So either install from source, write your own init script, hope you
know what ulimit -n is, good luck with
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 09:51:08AM -0700, Kali Tor wrote:
So, no way to offer DS while setting AccountingMax?
Correct.
At least in the scenario in this thread, not advertising the dirport
is a good choice by Tor, since it saves all your bandwidth for 'real'
Tor traffic.
The key thing to
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Kees Goossens wrote:
A question on how to manage a bandwidth quotum of my internet provider.
I run a non-exit relay on a hosted server with 1000 GB bandwidth per month.
In essence, should I
A- only set the AccountingMax, and let the relay figure out
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 09:51:33PM +, Davíð Steinn Geirsson wrote:
I rented a dedicated server to run a tor relay (100Mbit/s) to
contribute to the network. On this machine, tor gives messages like
these on startup:
http status 400 (Authdir is rejecting routers in this range.)
response
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:19:02PM +, Marcin Gondek wrote:
Sep 02 21:11:52.000 [info] channel_tls_process_netinfo_cell(): Received
NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at x.x.x.x:449. It seems that our
clock is ahead by 1 hours, 19 minutes, or that theirs is behind. Tor requires
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 01:00:38AM +, ja...@icetor.is wrote:
Sorry if asked before,
made a stupid oversight restarting one of my exits yesterday, had
duplicated the fingerprint file from another node. Changed the file to
the correct nickname today (I know nicknames are depreciated now) and
1 - 100 of 450 matches
Mail list logo
