Thanks, Teor and SuperSluether.
That's just what I needed, that TorProject:trusty syntax. Looks like it's
working.
-Greg
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:34 AM, SuperSluether
wrote:
> For Debian-based systems, on the top of
> "/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50unattended-upgrades"
> my file looks like this:
>
> U
2016-11-01 12:03 GMT-03:00, teor :
>
>> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 01:56, Felix wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> My log says:
>> Oct 19 01:04:52.527 [notice] Read configuration file
>> "/usr/local/etc/tor/torrc".
>> Oct 19 01:04:52.566 [notice] Opening OR listener on 0.0.0.0:1234
>> for
>> ORPort 443 NoListen
>> ORPor
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 02:01, Tristan wrote:
>
> So what mask would I use then? I've been trying to wrap my head around it,
> but I just don't understand what /24 means, or how it's different from /27 or
> any other number.
You have a list in IP-IP (IP range) format, and you want to convert it
Wow this is confusing. If I'm understanding this correctly, 0.0.0.0/24
would mean any address from 0.0.0.0 to 0.0.0.255, correct?
On Nov 1, 2016 10:01 AM, "Tristan" wrote:
> So what mask would I use then? I've been trying to wrap my head around it,
> but I just don't understand what /24 means, o
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 01:56, Felix wrote:
> ...
>
> My log says:
> Oct 19 01:04:52.527 [notice] Read configuration file
> "/usr/local/etc/tor/torrc".
> Oct 19 01:04:52.566 [notice] Opening OR listener on 0.0.0.0:1234
> for
> ORPort 443 NoListen
> ORPort 1234 NoAdvertise
> My Tor finds 0.0.0.0 an
So what mask would I use then? I've been trying to wrap my head around it,
but I just don't understand what /24 means, or how it's different from /27
or any other number.
On Nov 1, 2016 9:58 AM, "teor" wrote:
>
> > On 2 Nov. 2016, at 01:54, SuperSluether wrote:
> >
> > So, I tried putting the I
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 01:54, SuperSluether wrote:
>
> So, I tried putting the IPs into my exit policy like this:
>
> xx.xx.xx.xx-xx.xx.xx:*
>
> But Tor doesn't like that syntax. What's the correct way to block address
> ranges in the exit policy?
The man page is your friend:
ExitPolic
Am 01.11.2016 um 13:19 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
2016-10-31 20:22 GMT-03:00, Felix :
Am 31.10.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
2016-10-19 2:30 GMT-03:00, teor :
On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
Hi everybody
May be someone can help with this warning:
The security update (Tor
So, I tried putting the IPs into my exit policy like this:
xx.xx.xx.xx-xx.xx.xx:*
But Tor doesn't like that syntax. What's the correct way to block
address ranges in the exit policy?
On 11/01/2016 07:32 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
On 01.11.2016 12:56, hwertiout695 wrote:
https://whois.arin.n
For Debian-based systems, on the top of
"/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50unattended-upgrades" my file looks like this:
Unattended-Upgrade::Allowed-Origins {
"${distro_id}:${distro_codename}-security";
"${distro_id}:${distro_codename}-updates";
//"${distro_id}:${distro_codename}-proposed";
On 01.11.2016 12:56, hwertiout695 wrote:
> https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/PANEL-2/nets [...]
This appears to be the most comprehensive list of assigned networks
I have seen so far for panelboxmanager.com; thank you.
-Ralph
___
tor-relays mailing list
On 2016-11-01 at 13:29, SuperSluether wrote:
> Well, Tor-relay-debian says 250KBps (bytes):
> https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-relay-debian.html.en
>
> But Tor-doc-relay says 2Mbps (bits):
> https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-doc-relay.html.en
>
Which is exactly the same, so it's ok :)
Best
Agree, trying to explain why people like Tor operators and/or volunteers
on WGC are giving time, network/cpu computing, money... to preserve and
help human rights, health... can be a good way. Trying to show them what
the Tor network is, why, the goal... the easiest possible, because many
of them a
Well, Tor-relay-debian says 250KBps (bytes):
https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-relay-debian.html.en
But Tor-doc-relay says 2Mbps (bits):
https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-doc-relay.html.en
On 10/31/2016 11:58 PM, ane...@tutanota.de wrote:
In order to clarify this once and for all: If I s
Hi Volker,
A French text of law also exists for the following protection (following
lines) but there is some others laws that are making it not completely
clear, unfortunately.
You're not responsible about information that have been transmitted
trough your Internet access if :
-You're not
> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 23:12, Louie Cardone-Noott wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, at 11:42 AM, teor wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 15:58, wrote:
>>>
>>> In order to clarify this once and for all: If I setup a Tor relay with 200
>>> kBps, do I slow down the Tor network? What amount of bandwit
2016-10-31 20:22 GMT-03:00, Felix :
>
>
> Am 31.10.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Vinícius Zavam:
>> 2016-10-19 2:30 GMT-03:00, teor :
>>>
On 19 Oct. 2016, at 16:25, Felix wrote:
Hi everybody
May be someone can help with this warning:
The security update (Tor v0.2.8.9 run
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, at 11:42 AM, teor wrote:
>
> > On 1 Nov. 2016, at 15:58, wrote:
> >
> > In order to clarify this once and for all: If I setup a Tor relay with 200
> > kBps, do I slow down the Tor network? What amount of bandwith is needed in
> > order to not slow down the network?
>
> I
> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 16:44, Greg wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm very interested in setting up unattended upgrades for tor. I tried
> searching for instructions on how to do it. But the only instructions I could
> really find didn't work (on the Library Freedom git project).
> How do I write the config s
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Seichter schrieb am Di., 1. Nov. 2016 um
12:37 Uhr:
> Does anybody have a suggestion on how best to figure out which address
> ranges are owned by panelboxmanager.com? Complaints seem to come in for
> all sorts of addresses.
>
`whois 72.55.186.5` leads to https://whois.arin.net/
On 2016-11-01 at 12:37, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> On 01.11.2016 12:27, Diarmaid McManus wrote:
>
>> is there a way to dynamically update the exit policy as a relay is
>> running?
>
> There is. Change configuration file on-disk, then send a HUP signal to
> Tor process.
>
> Does anybody have a sugge
> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 15:58, wrote:
>
> In order to clarify this once and for all: If I setup a Tor relay with 200
> kBps, do I slow down the Tor network? What amount of bandwith is needed in
> order to not slow down the network?
In order to get the Fast flag, you need a relay capable of 2 m
On 01.11.2016 12:27, Diarmaid McManus wrote:
> is there a way to dynamically update the exit policy as a relay is
> running?
There is. Change configuration file on-disk, then send a HUP signal to
Tor process.
Does anybody have a suggestion on how best to figure out which address
ranges are owned
I wouldn't recommend blocking at the DNS level, as this could flag your
exit with a BADEXIT for modifying traffic.
The current official way to do this is through the exit policy, but this is
in a configuration file.
*Relay Operators*: is there a way to dynamically update the exit policy as
a relay
Thank you!
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 05:17, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> can you check once again?
>
> There was a problem with the data-collecting service that silently
> died on October 30 at around 23:00 UTC. I have been work
> On 1 Nov. 2016, at 07:42, SuperSluether wrote:
>
> They give me the IP address to block. The problem is yesterday it was on
> s01.panelboxmanager.com. Today it was s502.panelboxmanager.com. I was hoping
> for a way to block all sub-domains of panelboxmanager.com to prevent further
> abuse o
On 1 November 2016 at 10:16, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can you check once again?
>
> There was a problem with the data-collecting service that silently
> died on October 30 at around 23:00 UTC. I have been working on that
> problem for an hour or two, and it should be resolved by
Works, thank you very much!
2016-11-01 11:16 GMT+01:00 Karsten Loesing :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> can you check once again?
>
> There was a problem with the data-collecting service that silently
> died on October 30 at around 23:00 UTC. I have been
On 2016-11-01 at 11:16, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can you check once again?
>
> There was a problem with the data-collecting service that silently
> died on October 30 at around 23:00 UTC. I have been working on that
> problem for an hour or two, and it should be resolved by now.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi everyone,
can you check once again?
There was a problem with the data-collecting service that silently
died on October 30 at around 23:00 UTC. I have been working on that
problem for an hour or two, and it should be resolved by now. Please
try
Same here.
Sent from my iPad
> On 1 Nov 2016, at 10:42, Michael Armbruster wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-01 at 10:34, Pascal Terjan wrote:
>> For example
>> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/20462CBA5DA4C2D963567D17D0B7249718114A68
>> says uptime is 12 days and current version is 0.2.6.10 but I
On 2016-11-01 at 10:34, Pascal Terjan wrote:
> For example
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/20462CBA5DA4C2D963567D17D0B7249718114A68
> says uptime is 12 days and current version is 0.2.6.10 but I upgraded
> the machine and updated tor to 0.2.8.9 over a day ago:
>
I currently have problems
For example
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/20462CBA5DA4C2D963567D17D0B7249718114A68
says uptime is 12 days and current version is 0.2.6.10 but I upgraded
the machine and updated tor to 0.2.8.9 over a day ago:
# uptime
09:30:50 up 1 day, 8:32, 1 user, load average: 0.68, 0.81, 0.88
# ps
When reading this i am glad i live in germany.
We still have some laws which protect operators of TOR-Exits :)
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tmg/__5.html
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tmg/__8.html
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tmg/__15.html
(perhaps try to translate them with g
34 matches
Mail list logo
