Hi, Le 22/08/2014 19:23, kingqueen a écrit : > Does anybody know why my relay "kingqueen" has lost its Named > attribute? > https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/7B48192A59A903F914ECF73ADBC3711F3E8EAE01 > This extract from the last Tor weakly news should answer to your answer:
> The Tor network no longer supports designating relays by name > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Since the very first versions of Tor [8], relay operators have been able > to specify “nicknames” for their relays. Such nicknames were initially > meant to be unique across the network, and operators of directory > authorities would manually “bind” a relay identity key after verifying > the nickname. The process became formalized with the “Named” flag > introduced in the 0.1.1 series [9], and later automated with the 0.2.0 > series. If a relay held a unique nickname for long enough, the authority > would recognize the binding, and subsequently reserve the name for half > a year. > > Nicknames are useful because it appears humans are not very good at > thinking using long strings of random bits. Initially, they made it > possible to understand what was happening in the network more easily, > and to designate a specific relay in an abbreviated way. Having two > relays in the network with the same nickname is not really problematic > when one is looking at nodes, or a list in Globe [10], as relays can > always be differentiated by their IP addresses or identity keys. > > But complications arise when nicknames are used to specify one relay to > the exclusion of another. If the wrong relay gets selected, it can > become a security risk. Even though real efforts [11] have been made to > improve the situation, properly enforcing uniqueness has always been > problematic, and a burden for the few directory authorities that handle > naming. > > Back in April, the “Heartbleed” bug [12] forced many relays to switch to > a new identity key, thus losing their “Named” flag. Because this meant > that anyone designating relays by their nickname would now have a hard > time continuing to do so, Sebastian Hahn decided to use the opportunity > to get rid of the idea entirely [13]. > > This week, Sebastian wrote [14]: “Code review down to 0.2.3.x has shown > that the naming-related code hasn’t changed much at all, and no issues > were found which would mean a Named-flag free consensus would cause any > problems. gabelmoo and tor26 have stopped acting as Naming Directory > Authorities, and — pending any issues — will stay that way.” > > This means that although you can still give your relay a nickname in its > configuration file, designating relays by nickname for any other purpose > (such as telling Tor to avoid using certain nodes) has now stopped > working. “If you — in your Tor configuration file — refer to any relay > by name and not by identity hash, please change that immediately. Future > versions of Tor will not support using names in the configuration at > all”, warns Sebastian [15]. > > [8]: > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/blob/161d7d1:/src/config/torrc.in#l20 > [9]: > https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/attic/dir-spec-v2.txt#l427 > [10]: https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=Unnamed > [11]: > https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/proposals/122-unnamed-flag.txt > [12]: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/openssl-bug-cve-2014-0160 > [13]: > https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/proposals/235-kill-named-flag.txt > [14]: > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-August/007348.html > [15]: > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-August/034380.html Hop this helps. Regards, -- Patrick ZAJDA Skype: gansta93 _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
