Hi everybody,
I've read a few threads about attacks from exit nodes to the clear net
and from the clear net to tor nodes and have several questions:
-How can you recognize that the attacks to tor nodes are especially
against Tor?
-And how can a clear net user or better IDS easily differencing be
I know, I know about how internet works :) I’ve just simply noted a large
increase in SSH brute force attempts in the last two weeks. BTW I don’t have
root login enabled and I have two factor authentication on my SSH port (not
standard), which is enabled only for a single low privileges user, so
On October 3, 2017 11:02:55 PM PDT, Fr33d0m4all wrote:
>Hi,
>My Tor middle relay public IP address is victim of SSH brute force
>connections’ attempts and the attack is going on since two weeks ago.
>It’s not a problem, the server that is listening with SSH on the same
>IP address than my Tor rela
Original Message
On 4 Oct 2017, 07:02, Fr33d0m4all wrote: Hi, My Tor middle relay public IP
address is victim of SSH brute force connections’ attempts
Welcome to the Internet!
Any Internet connected machine will be port scanned, vuln probed, brute forced,
blindly hit with anci
I have setup a (private, key-based) Tor hidden service for SSH administration.
It works well and leaves no extra open ports to attack.
If you also take advantage of package updates over Tor (via the local SOCKS5
proxy that any Tor instance provides) the only non-OR incoming traffic you need
to
Hi,
My Tor middle relay public IP address is victim of SSH brute force connections’
attempts and the attack is going on since two weeks ago. It’s not a problem,
the server that is listening with SSH on the same IP address than my Tor relay
blocks the connections and bans the IP addresses (with F
> On 4 Oct 2017, at 01:38, grarpamp wrote:
>
> ... Exits would have
> to tag their support of "exit v4 and/or v6 to clearnet"
> in consensus so circuits get built to a place that
> can actually ship the client's cells out to clearnet.
> Relays WAN function already offer inbound connection
> capa
Little thought yet but related, figured if client host is dual stack,
could separate "client over WAN via IPv to reach relay"
function from traffic routed into tor's cells for carriage to pop
out other side, like a VPN for IP versions. Exits would have
to tag their support of "exit v4 and/or v6 to
Alison Macrina wrote:
> Scott Bennet> If he discovers that neither his campus library nor the
> university as a
> > whole is already officially running at least one relay, this may be a better
> > way to teach them. If, rather than going for a relay, which is quite likely
> > to scare them until
teor wrote:
>
> > On 3 Oct 2017, at 08:52, Scott Bennett wrote:
> >
> > teor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 3 Oct 2017, at 03:07, Scott Bennett wrote:
> >>
> > In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
> > avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2017, at 22:35, tanous .c wrote:
>
> Have any of you had this sort of problem? I'm having difficulty determining
> if this log information represents a normal exit relay ocurrence or if my
> server has been compromised... What could i do in order to solve this?
Yes, Profihost sent
Hi,
I have been running one tor exit relay for about 51 days and i recently
got this abuse
report:
Good afternoon,
Your Ip address (212.47.239.73) has been reported to us by profihost
because it seems to have attempted to bruteforce.
Thank you to take the necessary action as soon as possible.
Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:53:46 -0400
> teor wrote:
>
> > > For interposing dual-protocoled nodes along the way, how many do there
> > > have to be for it to become "not too limiting"?
> >
> > This is one of the questions we need researchers to answer.
>
> I can't help bu
> On 3 Oct 2017, at 10:57, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:53:46 -0400
> teor wrote:
>
>>>For interposing dual-protocoled nodes along the way, how many do there
>>> have to be for it to become "not too limiting"?
>>
>> This is one of the questions we need researchers to ans
Scott Bennet> If he discovers that neither his campus library nor the
university as a
> whole is already officially running at least one relay, this may be a better
> way to teach them. If, rather than going for a relay, which is quite likely
> to scare them until they understand more and better a
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:53:46 -0400
teor wrote:
> > For interposing dual-protocoled nodes along the way, how many do there
> > have to be for it to become "not too limiting"?
>
> This is one of the questions we need researchers to answer.
I can't help but feel you are overcomplicating this.
teor wrote:
>
> A related question is can a relay with only an IPv4 address
> published currently set an IPv6 OutboundBindAddress?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. This is useful for IPv6 exits without a fixed IPv6 ORPort address.
> >>>
> >> That's okay, but what if the node is an entry-and-middl
> On 3 Oct 2017, at 08:52, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
> teor wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3 Oct 2017, at 03:07, Scott Bennett wrote:
>>
> In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
> avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
We'd love to make this happen, but t
A related question is can a relay with only an IPv4 address
published currently set an IPv6 OutboundBindAddress?
>>>
>>> Yes. This is useful for IPv6 exits without a fixed IPv6 ORPort address.
>>>
>> That's okay, but what if the node is an entry-and-middle node only?
>>
> Hmm.
Scott Bennett wrote:
> teor wrote:
>
> >
> > On 3 Oct 2017, at 03:07, Scott Bennett wrote:
> >
> > >>> In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
> > >>> avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
> > >>
> > >> We'd love to make this happen, but the anonymity implicati
teor wrote:
>
> On 3 Oct 2017, at 03:07, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
> >>> In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
> >>> avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
> >>
> >> We'd love to make this happen, but the anonymity implications
> >> of mixed IPv4-only and IPv6-onl
Alison Macrina wrote:
> Hi AJ,
>
> Thank you for supporting Tor! I think it's a great idea to try to work
> with your university library to run a relay. I run the Library Freedom
> Project which helps libraries understand and use privacy tools
> (libraryfreedomproject.org). I can give you some ad
On 3 Oct 2017, at 03:07, Scott Bennett wrote:
>>> In the meantime, I think it would be great to have IPv6-only relays, to
>>> avoid this kind of NAT-related issues.
>>
>> We'd love to make this happen, but the anonymity implications
>> of mixed IPv4-only and IPv6-only (non-clique) networks need
teor wrote:
>
> > On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:54, Santiago wrote:
> >
> >> El 02/10/17 a las 13:19, Scott Bennett escribi?:
> >> grarpamp wrote:
> >>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Santiago wrote:
> >> ?
> >>
> >> Huh? What kind of ISP NATs its customers' connections? Your ISP
> >> s
24 matches
Mail list logo
