tor-relays September 2015

tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

55 participants
51 discussions

Fwd: WG: Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option
by Christian 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: WG: [tor-relays] Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option Datum: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:38:36 +0200 (MEST) Von: brightsidedarkside(a)t-online.de An: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org Sorry, to dumb to handle Android Mail. And prone to mistrust regarding my private address. Gesendet mit meinem HTC ----- Forwarded message ----- Von: An: "Billy Humphreys" <PokeAcer549(a)outlook.com> Betreff: [tor-relays] Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option Datum: Mo., Sep. 21, 2015 18:36 Hi all, I might miss the point, but as I also run Tor on Ubuntu, I can confirm it reads both config files, the default one and my torrc. The default one makes sure e.g. privilege dropping to user debian-tor and a few other things in case you miss to set them properly. My ORPort and other config is done via my torrc. And I would bet a cup of tasty coffee that Tor on Ubuntu looks for /etc/torrc and not for /etc/tor/torrc, but I always lose when I'm willing to bet, so I guess it's just a little stubborn. Greetings to you all. Christian Gesendet mit meinem HTC ----- Reply message ----- Von: "Billy Humphreys" <PokeAcer549(a)outlook.com> An: <tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org> Betreff: [tor-relays] Tor is starting without the -f /etc/tor/torrc option Datum: Mo., Sep. 21, 2015 18:15 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 It normally uses /usr/bin/<service name> On 21/09/2015 15:50, Sean Greenslade wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 09:05:21PM +0100, Tor Stuff wrote: >> I am running tor on a new Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS system. I have >> restarted tor a couple of times with >> >> service tor restart >> >> I noticed when I start arm that it is telling me that >> >> The torrc differs from what tor's using. You can issue sighup to >> reload ... >> >> It seems that tor is running with default values and is not >> reading /etc/tor/torrc as there is no ... -f /etc/tor/torrc >> option being used by the running tor when it is displayed with >> 'ps'. >> >> The 'ps' output for the tor instance is >> >> /usr/bin/tor --defaults-torrc >> /usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush >> >> I had asumed that because I have set DirPort to 80 and ORPort to >> 443 in /etc/tor/torrc and can see in the tor log files that those >> two ports are reachable from outside, that the running tor was >> reading /etc/tot/torrc. >> >> Something is amiss with my tor configuration but I don't know >> what. >> >> Any hints as to where to look would be welcome while I try to >> RTFM again! >> >> Cheers >> >> Q > > This isn't really a Tor issue, it's an Ubuntu one. But you need to > figure out how "service" is launching Tor and change it to point to > your /etc torrc. > > --Sean _______________________________________________ tor-relays > mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > - -- _______________________________________________ My GPG keyID is 0x6DEF6C26 - the key is avaliable on most keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWAC06AAoJEHukJMVt72wm7g8P/2QB01RxefD5hGFFwlt2k651 RwPeD1FaeAlRUDTsb4nUpxv0Cy5tYvzMmlqOx5YbWNgH7iBqYynoUXuWSgD/skfp Zfycin75lSOSLv5nj3gFDfh6z7xivxcwl8sfrtS/wRNmWtPaiVPx+uz+7K8Vr/qn 1A5QADFoCRBaQtl44cXJWdWtg5CKtPoCHEA95vYQDMunoL0diJJJyQH3wq7ERRgJ kamoZn6EtIVx+EJYkZmQ21GXTa9c5hjkW+reI6XUKZkgnq61Vbkw6HkRW7UUo8/y rp8q5sYmDCL61fZnSD7DeBFBBj7ajnccsGzjV5bBG9ztD7iTVvh0SWu05FaghcRu gpZ+/M7Z/8OUkCgr6F4YFAuE6mwJIcF8azSFXvuCsiVVfxo6DA8BGjzvLouZvdkx Q8SfCQYKUCAURtIamws5jRZHk+dSkktPvWqu4KMfmxbvtrA9xt8h2B/6+ix0c2X2 OXd13fl+D0E/Hu7Ka653SUBxiOJ2AbRGQDh998SjfAWA0qqkXLDTn6q6APlCB3g2 yjl03EVPdqx8zjGcQfeHhtmoEpWo92nPWzpXVeHODOu3UrTVF+wN5zlFf/NkVb16 v0kuyzCtnd5EZ8AbyI/c2ZGANMffuv47kHq8u2VQ+hZJJrN22Lc4Zs/PD31sBZGD 5WhIC9mkp/WD6rt9/+K9 =37jU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

3 2

Why are Globe/Atlas not showing my upgraded (& advertised) bandwidth
by Tor Stuff 20 Sep '15

20 Sep '15

It is now more 7 hours since I restarted my Middle Relay after the upgrade to my broadband to FTTC which by various tests is consistently showing more than 75/20 Mbits/s speeds now. I edited my torrc file and set RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst to 2.5 MBytes to reflect my new fast connection. The Tor log shows that both the DirPort and ORPort are reachable from the outside since the restart. Arm is correctly showing my bandwidth (limit & burst) as 20 Mb/s. However both Globe and Atlas are showing an Advertised Bandwidth which is less than my previous RelayBandwidthRate and RelayBandwidthBurst settings of 100 KBytes and 110 KBytes respectively! I have been running this node (nickname 'Geheimschreiber') with fingerprint C69D24F9353E16D85E82B4A9E4571DFAF6DCF531 for many months so expected Atlas/Globe to pickup my changed capabilities fairly quickly. Am I being too impatient or have I omitted something in my Tor configuration? Thanks Q

2 2

Blutmagie is Good Looking and VERY SLOW -- this script is VERY FAST
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 20 Sep '15

20 Sep '15

improved: 1) flags on left side for easy left-anchor grep'ping 2) authority flag shares exit flag column 3) "a" alpha and "r" rc appended to version 4) OS flag in separate aligned column NOTES no "directory" flag since dir-port is "none" when not present no "valid" or "running" flags since such routers are excluded from the ranking Blutmagie has a "x" flag for "bad exit", no HDdir flag Rueckgr has a "h" HDdir flag, but no "bad exit" flag

1 0

Blutmagie is Good Looking and VERY SLOW -- this script is VERY FAST
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

For those who like Blutemagie's excellent Tor node report and ranking, but find the painfully slow page rendering --well painful. This script pulls the same data via the CSV download and generates concise readable text report. 100x faster literally. Also a script for the newer Rueckgr.at TorStatus page. This one shows self-measure bandwidth instead of 24-hour average actual bandwidth.

1 0

How to determine demand/need for bridges/PT?
by Steve Snyder 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

Looking at the Tor Metrics page, I can see the number of bridges and the number of users connecting via bridges, but that's not enough information to determine satisfaction of demand. Are there now enough bridges to comfortably satisfy demand? Enough bridges with a particular PT type? If not, what kind of resources are lacking? How does one determine where the need for more bridges, or PT type, is greatest? (Assuming that there is any unmet need at all.)

3 2

Tor relays without AESNI
by nobody 17 Sep '15

17 Sep '15

Hi all, I am looking at renting a dedicated server on a unmetered 100 Mbit/s connection, but the CPU is a Intel G850, which is old (Q2 2011) and does not have AES-NI. Will this CPU be too slow to make use of the bandwidth? Thanks,

5 4

Preventing wp-admin related abuse report
by spiros_spiros＠freemail.gr 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Greetings community, Over last eight weeks a Tor exit that I operate has attracted more and more abuse reports and the VPS data centre is starting to lose their patience with the amount of tickets they open for each incident. Almost all of the abuse reports are relate to attempts to access wordpress blogs by exploiting wp-admin or other scripts, and the servers are protected by bitninja, abusix, spamcop etc to automatically send abuse complaint. I am now receiving average of 2-3 per week. I have two questions. First question - is everyone getting this high amount of wordpress related attacks from exits? Second - are there recommended steps to take to reduce or prevent this kind of activity? Things I try so far: - run exit on reduced policy (obviously not going to have an impact on abuse traffic but did make the data centre people happy for a while) - full security check on VPS including tripwire, clamav, lastcomm etc to assure provider that the VPS is not compromised - Tor port on server has website running explaining that this is a Tor exit and linking to more information - I have offered to work with ISP to change WHOIS to my email address, but they do not seem keen on it (some blacklists that the server is added to will also block the /16 of the IP range) - Block offended host on the firewall (as a last resort) Thanks for any suggestions Spiros

7 9

Middle Relay has no traffic
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

>My middle relay seems to have minimal traffic. >Is there something I need to do or is my damn >IPS (Comcast) blocking me. > >Node name is gmojo02 > >gm Possibly the Comcast gateway NAT is unable to deal with lots of connections andj/or it may be an older, slow model that can't handle much traffic. Or possibly your connection is just at the low end of the bandwidth spectrum. You can see all the Comcast relays ranked by traffic by going to https: // torstatus dot blutemagie dot de and at the bottom of the page selecting Advanced Search: hostname contains comcast Some options: 1) have a new gateway swapped in 2) upgrade to faster service 3) switch to a static IP (an option for business customers) and configure the relay on the static IP so it bypasses the Comcast device's NAT 4) switch to Verizon FiOS, which is 5x better than Comcast for the same money 5) make sure the system running the relay is reasonably fast, i.e. 1.8GHz or better and had a decent quality NIC; run speedtest_cli.py and it should match your ostensible Comcast bandwidth w/r/t (4) check out what happened to my relay after switching from 3up/18down Comcast to 75up/75down FiOS https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/4F0DB7E687FC7C0AE55C8F243DA8B0EB27FBF… (keeping in mind the relay is well tuned) You can see all the FiOS relays on Blutmagie with hostname contains comcast

4 5

Re: [tor-relays] Middle Relay has no traffic
by torrry＠Safe-mail.net 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

As starlight said, you are getting the appropriate amount of traffic according to the bandwidth authority measurements for your relay. Right now, the middle/entry nodes are relatively lightly utilized. This is a good thing, since it makes for a much better user experience. With high utilization, the web browsing experience deteriorates dramatically as network request latency goes up.

1 0

Middle Relay has no traffic
by starlight.2015q3＠binnacle.cx 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

[know I'm breaking the thread--sorry about that] >Starlight - I see your advertised BW is >7.26MB = 58.08 Mb with globe showing 2 >to 4 Mb traffic. Maybe I will up the >advertised BW on the relay and see if >that helps. That's not "advertised" bandwidth in the sense of something that can be adjusted by the operator. It's the relay self- measurement and is the fastest sustained speed the relay has observed in the last 24 hours. You can see this information in the 'state' file on the BW...Max lines. Verizon recently took down the connection here for 18 hours (central-office upgrade work for their new 100/100 promotion; they will not admit it and gave no warning --Verizon is not a perfect company either). Normally the self-measure peaks at around 80-90% or so of actual bandwidth and the 7256KB value is on the low side of it's range. Self-measure for GMOJO02 is 204KB or 1.6Mbits/second. The BWauths have the relay as: 2-gablemoo--w Bandwidth=204 Measured=33 5-moria1----w Bandwidth=204 Measured=59 3-maatuska--w Bandwidth=204 Measured=82 -- median 1-longclaw--w Bandwidth=204 Measured=131 4-Faravahar-w Bandwidth=204 Measured=185 I see this configured for GMOJO02: BandwidthBurst 307200 BandwidthRate 204800 The self-measure shows this relay is getting exactly what it should based on the settings. If you want more you must increase these values. This is what I ran with before the switch: BandwidthBurst 1200000 BandwidthRate 325000 Where the 325KB average-max is 85% of the 3MBit maximum capacity of the Comcast link (375KB) and is intended to prevent Comcast's aggressive and problematic traffic shaping from kicking in. The BWauth/Torflow system presently targets 25-35% available bandwidth utilization and the latter settings above will cause the relay to obtain something like the consensus 0.015934% value show by Globe for the relay here back just before the switch to FiOS, while the relay you have is presently at 0.000232%. Keep in mind the percentages fall steadily due to overall bandwidth of the Tor network increasing. The BWauth value for the relay here was something like 230k if I recall correctly.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-relays September 2015