Cipher-downgrade CVE-2015-0204 fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.1k.
usual sensational write-up courtesy of El-Reg
http://theregister.co.uk/security
For operators who don't obsess
over "non-critical" OpenSSL releases,
is it time to catch up?
___
tor-relays mailing
Last bit of info. . .
I realized that the two other events
mentioned earlier where the hard-configured
guards were unreachable were the result
of local Internet connectivity outages
--had slipped my mind when writing that
message.
So the 30 minutes (almost exactly) of
guard unreachabllity was a u
At 22:35 1/31/2015 +0100, Network Operations Center wrote:
>This link has been posted:
>http://freehaven.net/~arma/moria1-v3-status-votes
>which is a collection of all 9 BWauth nodes.
This looks like the data from just
one BWauth, 'moria1'.
The full time series for the _four_ BWauth
votes is inc
At 21:51 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote:
>This has already been done.
Implicit in my post is that
1) about 10 days have passed, so recent
data is more relevant than the earlier
work, especially an one BWauth operator
stated his node should be doing better;
and
2) no precise mention of how to obtain
also, for recent data. . .
https://collector.torproject.org/recent/
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
At 20:54 1/31/2015 +0100, you wrote:
>Consensus weight of my relays and those of others
>is still near zero, and not improving. . .
I read the earlier discussion around this
issue with interest. Have no specific
ideas about resolving the problem, but
I can recommend pulling the raw text
data file
At 06:20 1/31/2015 -0500, grarpamp wrote:
>Yet during the time of an outage, you might try
>to leave the old tor running and. . .
Also I see I should make a copy of the
cached-* files and the state file in
case some anomaly is present the Tor
routing data.
I did look at Vidalia'a network map
at t
At 06:20 1/31/2015 -0500, grarpamp wrote:
>Yet during the time of an outage, you might try
>to leave the old tor running and. . .
I see the idea here but it's a lot
of fiddling and preparation. If it
continues to happen and I suspect
a bug, I'll upgrade the relay
version and run 'tcpdump' with
a
relay version is 0.2.4.24
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
relay version is 0.2.4.24
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
More important detail I should include:
After spending a few minutes trying to
figure out what was wrong, I restarted the
'tor' relay daemon. It came up like this:
Bootstrapped 5%: Connecting to directory server.
We now have enough directory information to build circuits.
Bootstrapped 80%: Conn
I should add that three ping-plotters
pointed at various diverse networks
ran clean during the outage, and that
trusty Google was accessible at all
times via normal HTTP. So the local
carrier appears to have had no
disruptions.
I didn't think to ping the guards
or other proximate systems at the t
A couple of months ago I hard-configured
two entry nodes that I trust for my own
browsing. Both are very fast, very
reliable nodes on the opposite side
of the Atlantic.
For about 20 minutes this evening
the 'tor' daemon appears to have lost
connectivity to the both nodes and
I could not browse vi
Can't pull anything up on either Atlas or Globe.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
> Bridge relays . . .
Isis,
Thank you very much for your
description of how it works and the
references to the specifications.
More and more I've come to realize
one should start there.
>> It just popped to 700KB, presumably because
>> I used it to browse and then download
>> the TBB bundle as
I allowed the bridge bandwidth decay
over a couple of days back to 8KBbyte,
which seems to be the floor. "Fast"
flag was dropped.
After about a day that way, the bridge/relay
daemon started running an occasional
"bandwidth self-test", the rate went
up to 60KB and the "fast" flag returned.
Appear
>Thank you very much for all the precious advice.
>I am running tor on linux.
I second the suggestion of applying 'iptables'
to collecting traffic statistics. Lot of ways
to go about it but here's something similar
to the approach I'm using. By having separate
entries for established and new con
At 13:52 1/5/2015 +0100, you wrote:
>That's what 'we' found out now :-)
I figured it out.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Apparently not.
At 13:25 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>I meant treated like relays in relation to traffic ...
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relay
Unquestionably Bridges are different.
Suggest you read about it--lots of info
to be found.
At 13:08 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>I know. That's why I said that I don't have that much knowledge
>about
>bridges but think that they are treated like relays.
>
>Am 05.01.2015 um
BTW you are running normal Tor public relay
rather than a Bridge.
At 12:05 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>I'm running 29E3D95332812F81F67FF31B3B1B842683D1C309
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.
Bridge behavior is decidedly different than
normal relay behavior--I've been running one
for a year.
Normal relays get poked fairly often by
the four "BWAuth" bandwidth authorities
and bandwidth starts at 20KB and rises
steadily from the get-go.
I suppose the bandwidth calculation is
passive in b
Whoa wow. . .
It just popped to 700KB, presumably because
I used it for to browse and then download
the TBB bundle as a test.
So I guess that means the bandwidth measurement
for a bridge is strictly passive? Presumably
that also means that it is not used as
a criteria for dissemination?
___
At 11:49 1/5/2015 +0100, Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner wrote:
>What's the fingerprint of your bridge or what's the uptime?
>When I setup my relay the shown bandwidth was first low and
>increased since then to full declared speed.
Bridge is A411C021A7B95F340485A9CCE34187025193DEF6
Uptime is two+ days
Oops. The "rate limit" I quoted
is actually the limit on the DOCSIS
modem here, not on the VPS. Probably
not 'iptables' traffic shaping
after all.
Using 'speedtest_cli.py' the max rate
has been showing 100 Mbits/sec, but
I discount that because the speedtest
node appears to reside in the same
da
Hello,
Just setup a new bridge running 0.2.6.1-alpha
and it's working fine.
The bridge is running in a Linux container
VPS and appears to have an iptables
traffic-shaped bandwidth limit of 400KB.
Can browse and download files through
it with decent performance using obfs4.
However self-measureme
26 matches
Mail list logo
