On 15 Feb (21:55:48), tor-ad...@torland.is wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after 5 years of operation I will shutdown TorLand1
> (https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/E1E922A20AF608728824A620BADC6EFC8CB8C2B8)
>
> on February 17 2017.
>
> During the time of operation it pumped almost 6 PetaByte of exit
On 28 Feb (02:09:00), nusenu wrote:
>
>
> Donncha O'Cearbhaill:
> > nusenu:
> >> This group is still growing.
> >>
> >> Note that the following table is _not_ sorted by FP.
> >>
> >> The FP links these relays even across ISP, and given the FP column
> >> pattern it might be obvious what they are
On 18 Oct (20:11:45), Markus Koch wrote:
> 20:08:18 [WARN] Received http status code 404 ("Not found") from
> server '86.59.21.38:80' while fetching
> "/tor/keys/fp-sk/14C131DFC5C6F93646BE72FA1401C02A-
>8DF2E8B4-692049A2E7868BE9933107A39B1CE0C7CBF1BF65".
> 20:06:18 [WARN] Received http
On 03 Jan (18:24:07), Felix wrote:
> https:// consensus-health.torproject.org/
> (observed 2017-01-03 16:00:00 and 2017-01-03 17:00:00)
> shows
> * dannenberg: Missing entirely from consensus
The ed25519 key of dannenberg expired so it has to be fixed to resolved
the situation. I believe Andreas
Hello Relay Ops!
Few days ago, the bad relay team found some public ntop service running on
these relays on port 3000 for which they have no or an invalid contact info.
If you are one of the operator, please close or lock it down else as a safety
measure we'll have to reject those relays from the
On 01 Aug (17:11:24), Logforme wrote:
> Saw a new thing in my tor log today:
> Aug 01 11:07:27.000 [warn] Established prop224 intro point on circuit
> 799774346
Oh my... that is NOT suppose to be a warning at all... We totally forgot to
remove that log statement...
Very sorry about that! I've
On 07 Jun (19:41:00), nusenu wrote:
> DocTor [1] made me look into this.
>
> _All_ 65 relays in the following table have the following characteristics:
> (not shown in the table to safe some space)
Yah, we got a report on bad-relays@ as well... We are looking into this but
seems there is a
On 24 Aug (12:11:47), Marcus Danilo Leite Rodrigues wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was running a Tor Relay for the past month (fingerprint
> 71BEBB61D0D35234D57087D035F12971FA315168)
> at my university and it seems that it got banned somehow. I got messages on
> my log like the following:
>
> http status
n Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:14 PM, George <geo...@queair.net> wrote:
>
> > David Goulet:
> > > Hello everyone!
> > >
> > > Since July 2017, there has been a steady decline in relays from ~7k to
> > now
> > > ~6.5k. This is a bit
Hello everyone!
Since July 2017, there has been a steady decline in relays from ~7k to now
~6.5k. This is a bit unusual that is we don't see often such a steady behavior
of relays going offline (at least that I can remember...).
It could certainly be something normal here. However, we shouldn't
running a relay!
Cheers!
David
>
> On Oct 23, 2017, 9:32 AM, at 9:32 AM, David Goulet <dgou...@torproject.org>
> wrote:
> >Hello everyone!
> >
> >Since July 2017, there has been a steady decline in relays from ~7k to
> >now
> >~6.5k. This is a bit
On 14 Dec (20:41:56), Felix wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> Can someone explain the following tor log entry:
>
> Removed 528 bytes by killing 385780 circuits; 0 circuits remain alive.
> (it's the nicest one, see below)
>
>
> Memory stays at 3 - 4 GB before and after. Only tor restart gets rid of
>
On 14 Nov (12:52:27), Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> You may notice that Atlas has a new look, and is no longer called Atlas.
> For now no URLs have changed but this is part of work to merge this tool
> into the Tor Metrics website.
Hi Iain!
Great stuff! Thanks for this and letting us
On 14 Nov (13:24:21), Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 14/11/17 13:01, David Goulet wrote:
> > Quick question for you. Atlas used to have the search box at all time in the
> > corner which for me was very useful because I could do many search without
> > an
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
>
On 09 Feb (19:06:23), Paul wrote:
> What could bring several exits at different providers and different operating
> systems (Linux and FreeBSD) down on the same day, Jan 21st?
>
> Since, while they still run as relays, they don’t show as exits any more
> without any change from my side.
>
>
On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
> without any connection limits on the iptables firewall seems to be a lot
> more robust against the recent increase in clients (or possible [D]DoS). But
> tonight for a
On 12 Feb (21:14:14), Stijn Jonker wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 12 Feb 2018, at 20:44, David Goulet wrote:
>
> > On 12 Feb (20:09:35), Stijn Jonker wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> So in general 0.3.3.1-alpha-dev and 0.3.3.2-alpha running on two nodes
>
On 22 Dec (00:20:38), Toralf Förster wrote:
> With 0.3.2.7-rc the command
> /usr/sbin/iftop -B -i eth0 -P -N -n -m 320M
> showed every then and when (few times in a hour) for 10-20 sec a traffic
> value of nearly 0 bytes for the short-term period (the left of the 3 values).
> Usuaally I do
On 22 Dec (20:37:37), r1610091651 wrote:
> I'm wondering if it is necessary to have a lot of ram assigned to queues?
> Is there some rule of thumb to determine the proper sizing? Based on number
> of circuits maybe?
So there are probably many different answers to this or ways to look at
it but I
On 20 Dec (11:21:57), David Goulet wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm David and I'm part of the core development team in Tor. A few minutes ago
> I just sent this to the tor-project@ mailing list about the DDoS the network
> is currently under:
>
> https://lists.torproject.org/
On 21 Dec (22:15:00), Felix wrote:
> > If you are running a relay version >= 0.3.2.x (currently 281 relays in the
> > network), please update as soon as you can with the latest tarball or latest
> > git tag.
> Update as well if HSDir is still present? The network might loose the
> rare ones.
If
Hi everyone!
I'm David and I'm part of the core development team in Tor. A few minutes ago
I just sent this to the tor-project@ mailing list about the DDoS the network
is currently under:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2017-December/001604.html
There is not much more to say
On 22 Mar (23:20:54), tor wrote:
> > Suggestion: DoSCircuitCreationMinConnections=1 be established in consensus
>
>
> The man page for the above option says:
>
> "Minimum threshold of concurrent connections before a client address can be
> flagged as executing a circuit creation DoS. In other
On 12 Dec (09:33:58), Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 12/11/18 10:54 PM, nusenu wrote:
> > from their fingerprints
> I'm just curious that the fingerprints starts with the same sequence. I was
> under the impression that the fingerprint is somehow unique like a hash?
If one would like to position
On 12 Feb (21:30:10), Olaf Grimm wrote:
> Hello !
>
> I provisioning a new exit since two hours. It is a totally new relay in
> a VM. My other relays at the same provider are ok. Why I see "BadExit"
> in Nyx??? Now my first bad experience with my 11 relays...
>
> fingerprint:
On 02 Feb (04:10:02), petra...@protonmail.ch wrote:
Hi, thanks for the report!
>
> There is something really strange going on indeed. What I noticed is an
> increase of circuits and my device running out of memory until it stopped
> working so I had to reboot it on 31. Jan. Then again the
On 18 Jun (12:51:45), dns1...@riseup.net wrote:
> Hello,
Hi!
>
> I have an exit relay on a debian remote vm. Yesterday, after I installed the
> last linux security update, I rebooted It, and than I had a problem with
> additional IPs, that were no more being assigned. In order to understand if
On 24 Jun (01:49:18), starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No leaks. The VM has 1GB, very light for moderate busy relay.
>
> Should be 4GB, perhaps 3DB would do. Settings should include:
>
> AvoidDiskWrites 1
> DisableAllSwap 1
> MaxMemInQueues 1024MB# perhaps 1536MB
>
> My
On 30 Apr (12:06:31), marziyeh latifi wrote:
> Hello,
> I have two questions about SENDME cell in TOR:
> Is SENDME a Control cell or a Relay cell?
A SENDME cell is a control cell. See:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt#n1531
However, SENDME exists at the stream level
Sorry for the very bad Subject line. Thank you Mutt :).
David
On 30 Apr (15:59:23), David Goulet wrote:
> On 30 Apr (12:06:31), marziyeh latifi wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have two questions about SENDME cell in TOR:
> > Is SENDME a Control cell or a Relay cell?
>
> A SE
On 07 Jul (01:16:07), Michael Gerstacker wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> my relay
> 79E683340B80676DCEB029E48FBD36BC66EBDA1E
> told me:
>
>
> Jul 06 15:22:34.000 [notice] DoS mitigation since startup: 0 circuits
> killed with too many cells. 150515 circuits rejected, 16 marked addresses.
> 0 connections
Greetings relay operators!
Tor has now embarked in a 2 year long scalability project aimed, in part, at
improving the network performance.
The first steps will be to measure performance on the public network in order
to come up with a baseline. We'll likely be adjusting circuit window size,
cell
On 15 Oct (23:40:34), nusenu wrote:
> > KISTSchedRunInterval=2
> >
> > We are still missing 1 authority to enable this param for it to take effect
> > network wide. Hopefully, it should be today in the coming hours/day.
>
> since it is in effect by now
>
On 16 Oct (10:49:43), nusenu wrote:
> lets see when this graph stops growing
> https://cryptpad.fr/code/#/2/code/view/1uaA141Mzk91n1EL5w0AGM7zucwFGsLWzt-EsXKzNnE/present/
To help you out here for this line:
"2020-10-15 ?? first Tor dir auths change KISTSchedRunInterval from 10 to 2"
These are
On 15 Oct (19:26:09), Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:40:34PM +0200, nusenu wrote:
> > since it is in effect by now
> > https://consensus-health.torproject.org/#consensusparams
> > could you publish the exact timestamp when it came into effect?
>
> One can learn this from
On 22 Jul (15:54:54), David Goulet wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> We've very recently merged upstream (tor.git) full IPv6 supports which implies
> many many things. We are still finalizing the work but most of it is in at the
> moment.
Greetings everyone!
Thanks everyone
On 24 Jul (13:30:31), David Goulet wrote:
>
> The new list has been generated and can be found here:
Apology, clarification needs to be made:
>
> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/fallback-scripts/-/blob/master/fallback_offer_list
> Diff:
> https://gitlab.torproject.org
On 08 Jul (13:36:57), gus wrote:
> Dear Relay Operators,
>
> Do you want your relay to be a Tor fallback directory mirror?
> Will it have the same address and port for the next 2 years?
Greetings operators!
First off, we got 225 relays to volunteer for this round which is incredible
so thank
On 19 Jul (00:16:45), nottryingtobel...@protonmail.com wrote:
> My bridge was running fine, then started throwing the same error over and
> over. See my last two days of logs here: https://pastebin.com/7FNXC6PZ.
> Function doesn't seem to be affected as the heartbeats still show users.
Did you
Greetings everyone!
We've very recently merged upstream (tor.git) full IPv6 supports which implies
many many things. We are still finalizing the work but most of it is in at the
moment.
This is a call for help if anyone would like to test either git master[1] or
nightly builds[2] (only Debian)
On 09 Feb (11:55:12), tscha...@posteo.de wrote:
> Tonight my Tor relay on Raspberry Pi (buster) was upgraded from
> 0.4.4.6-1~bpo10+1 to 0.4.5.5-rc-1~bpo10+1 automaticly, but failed to start:
>
> ---
> [notice] Opening OR listener on 0.0.0.0:587
> [notice] Opened OR listener connection (ready) on
On 23 Mar (23:18:32), Alexander Dietrich wrote:
> > David Goulet hat am 22.03.2021 13:24 geschrieben:
> >
> > > Sending GET requests to the address returns empty responses.
> >
> > You should be able to get the metrics with a GET on /metrics.
> >
On 11 Mar (19:16:50), s7r wrote:
> On 3/10/2021 5:31 PM, William Kane wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > manually specify IP and port, and set the IPv4Only flag for both
> > ORPort and DirPort.
> >
> > Reference: https://2019.www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en
> >
> > William
> >
>
> I think he
On 10 Mar (15:31:37), William Kane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> manually specify IP and port, and set the IPv4Only flag for both
> ORPort and DirPort.
>
> Reference: https://2019.www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en
Yes good advice.
Sorry about this. We believe we fixed most of the issues in 0.4.5
On 19 Mar (21:11:25), Alexander Dietrich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> when I activate the "MetricsPort" feature, the Tor log reports that it is
> going to open the port, then it says "Address already in use". According to
> "netstat", the address is indeed in use, but by "tor".
Thanks for this report!
On 24 Feb (12:02:11), Dr Gerard Bulger wrote:
> Thinking of IPv6:
>
> How far has the team got in implementing IPv6 only OR port facility ?
As of tor 0.4.5.x release, IPv6 is fully supported for tor clients and relays.
>
> Currently you can only run tor relay of any sort if there is open IPv4
On 24 Feb (11:08:15), Onion Operator wrote:
> Saluton,
>
> My relay started to log this message since 0.4.5.5:
>
> Auto-discovered IPv6 address [...]:443 has not been found reachable. However,
> IPv4 address is reachable. Publishing server descriptor without IPv6 address.
> [2 similar
On 25 Feb (23:20:04), Onior Operator wrote:
>
> > Op 25/02/2021 14:19 schreef David Goulet :
> >
> >
> > On 24 Feb (11:08:15), Onion Operator wrote:
> > > Saluton,
> > >
> > > My relay started to log this message since 0.4.5.5:
> >
Greetings!
This is to announce that the Tor Project network team will soon change how
fallback directories are selected as we are about to update that list.
As a reminder, here is the fallback directory definition from the tor man
page:
When tor is unable to connect to any directory cache for
On 07 Apr (21:43:50), Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 4/7/21 9:04 PM, David Goulet wrote:
> > Over time, we will remove or add more relays at each minor release if the
> > set
> > of fallback directories not working reaches a 25% threshold or more.
>
> In the past a fallb
On 20 Feb (11:52:33), Manager wrote:
>Hello,
>
>im trying to enable prometheus metrics, and... something goes wrong:
>
>torrc:
>MetricsPort 9166
>MetricsPortPolicy accept *
>
>after tor restart in logs:
>Tor[15368]: Opening Metrics listener on 127.0.0.1:9166
>
On 02 Aug (20:55:25), Cristian Consonni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After 7+ years of running a relay on DigitalOcean, I have decided to
> move it somewhere else, as there are cheaper options.
>
> I kept the same keys and fingerprint and it seems that it has been
> picked up correctly on Atlas/Tor metrics,
On 17 Oct (13:54:22), Arlen Yaroslav via tor-relays wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Arlen!
>
> I've done some further analysis on this. The reason my relay is being marked
> as overloaded is because of DNS timeout errors. I had to dive into the
> source code to figure this out.
>
> In dns.c, a libevent
On 27 Sep (14:23:34), Gary C. New via tor-relays wrote:
> George,
> The referenced support article provides recommendations as to what might be
> causing the overloaded state, but it doesn't provide the metric(s) for how
> Tor decides whether a relay is overloaded. I'm trying to ascertain the
>
On 24 Sep (12:36:17), li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:39:08 PM CEST Silvia/Hiro wrote:
>
> > When a relay is in the overloaded state we show an amber dot next to the
> > relay nickname.
> Nice thing. This flag has noticed me a few days ago.
>
> > If you noticed
On 02 Oct (01:29:56), torix via tor-relays wrote:
> My relays (Aramis) marked overloaded don't make any sense either. Two of
> the ones marked with orange are the two with the lowest traffic I have (2-5
> MiB/s and 4-9 MiB/s - not pushing any limits here); the third one with that
> host has more
On 01 Oct (03:08:20), Andreas Kempe wrote:
> Hello David!
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 08:22:08AM -0400, David Goulet wrote:
> > On 24 Sep (12:36:17), li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:39:08 PM CEST Silvia/Hiro wrote:
>
On 02 Nov (18:20:31), sysmanager7 via tor-relays wrote:
> I was notified by Uptime Robot that relay 1 of 3 had been shut down.
> Unfortunately I found this out 12 hours after the fact.
> guard flag is lost.
>
> journalctl -u tor@default
>
> Nov 01 01:03:18 ubuntu-s-1vcpu-2gb-nyc1-01
On 06 Nov (21:39:44), Logforme wrote:
> Got the following in my log today:
> Nov 06 18:19:01.000 [warn] Possible compression bomb; abandoning stream.
> Nov 06 18:19:01.000 [warn] Unable to decompress HTTP body (tried Zstandard
> compressed, on Directory connection (client reading) with
On 01 Nov (21:44:53), nusenu wrote:
>
>
> David Goulet:
> > On 29 Oct (00:51:15), nusenu wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > are there known issues with the nightly master debian package builds?
> > > https://deb.torproject.org/torproj
On 29 Oct (00:51:15), nusenu wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> are there known issues with the nightly master debian package builds?
> https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/
Not to our knowledge?
>
> and a related question:
> Will the stable packages remain on the 0.4.5.x LTS branch until
> the
On 18 Nov (10:01:09), Arlen Yaroslav via tor-relays wrote:
> > Some folks might consider switching to non-exit nodes to just get rid of
> >
> > the overload message. Please bear with us while we are debugging the
> >
> > problem and don't do that. :) We'll keep this list in the loop.
>
> The
On 01 Jan (21:12:38), s7r wrote:
> Hello,
Hi s7r!
Sorry for the delay, some vacationing happened for most of us eheh :).
>
> One of my relays (guard, not exit) started to report being overloaded since
> once week ago for the first time in its life.
>
> The consensus weight and advertised
On 23 Jan (11:36:05), Fran via tor-relays wrote:
> Hej,
>
> taking another look and comparing it to onion_services exporter there is a
> slight difference in the metrics output.
>
> prometheus-onion-service-exporter:
>
> onion_service_up{address="foobar:587",name="mail_v3_587",type="tcp"} 1
>
On 22 Jul (23:28:51), Fran via tor-relays wrote:
> Hey,
>
> new non-exit relay, Debian 11, tor 0.4.7.8-1~d11.bullseye+1, ~ 1 week old
> (-> no guard)
>
> KVM VM with atm 4 cores, host passthrough AMD EPYC (-> AES HW accel.).
>
> As can be seen at the attached screenshots memory consumption is
On 25 Jul (19:31:16), Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 7/25/22 14:48, David Goulet wrote:
> > It is usually set around 75% of your total memory
>
> Is there's a max limit ?
Capped to "SIZE_MAX" which on 64 bit is gigantic, like around 18k Petabytes.
On Linux, we use /pr
On 28 Oct (11:04:09), n...@danwin1210.de wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> again, thanks for your work on adding more metrics to tor's MetricsPort!
> Many relay operators will love this and documentation will be useful [1].
>
> I reported
> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40699
>
68 matches
Mail list logo
