Am 05.10.2017 19:08 schrieb AMuse:
Hi all! I'm getting a number of ISP Abuse complaints around outbound
ssh brute-forcing from our exit relay.
I'm personally of the opinion that people should run fail2ban (or
equiv) and get on with life and I generally ignore the complaints -
but wondered, what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/05/2017 08:55 PM, tor-relay.d...@o.banes.ch wrote:
> In the end we disabled port 22. After all - any sysadmin who wants
> to have peace and ever looked a ssh config will have its listen
> port somewhere else than 22.
+1
disabled exit pot 22 he
Good Evening,
What Dirk just described is exactly what happened here. Timeframe matches
and i disabled port 22 as well. Adjusting the port for your own system
seems to be a good idea and it is working very well for me.
--
Sincerely yours / M.f.G. / Sincères salutations
Sebastian Urbach
-
All,
I am performing some operating system upgrades and my exit nodes may be down
for a period of time.
Just a heads up.
John
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Hello AMuse,
we faced the same about 1-2 month ago. Actuall people use fail2ban which
creates abuse mails to you provider.
Thats not new. But recently the abuse mails have risen to numbers which
lead us to believe there are acutally more people abusing ssh via tor
than people really using it.
In
Hi all! I'm getting a number of ISP Abuse complaints around outbound ssh
brute-forcing from our exit relay.
I'm personally of the opinion that people should run fail2ban (or equiv)
and get on with life and I generally ignore the complaints - but wondered,
what are other operators doing?
Is anyon
Kenneth Freeman wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2017 11:31 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
> > They have refused to let me speak with those making the decisions about
> > what is provided on their public computers, much less to make an organized
> > presentation to them. I was told that the decisions abou
> Paul wrote
> I did speak to a lawyer and there is no requirement to retain any data if
> you run a node. It's treated as a VPN.
>
> My question that I sent was more about whether a service (non commercial
> service) was exempt.
> They don't delineate.
>
Thank you for setting us straight.
Robe
teor wrote:
>
> > On 4 Oct 2017, at 22:52, teor wrote:
> >
> > But I'm not a lawyer, so you should get your own lawyer.
> > Or run a relay outside Australia.
>
> Or run an exit, because exits never know client IP addresses.
> All they know is the destination. And internet destinations are
> exc
William Denton wrote:
> On 4 October 2017, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
> > Let me give an example. I have for at least ten years asked my local
> > public library to provide a) a secure shell client, b) a secure web browser
> > for ordinary use where anonymity is not a concern, c) a secure FTP cl
10 matches
Mail list logo
