Re: [tor-relays] safeguard operators (was: Reimbursement of Exit Operators)

2013-09-20 Thread Elrippo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hy all. Offshore sounds like outsourcing :) In EU I had some discussions with providers of KVM servers, dedicated and collocation based systems. Tor should know William Weber and his company. I had a little chat with him, and principally his com

Re: [tor-relays] Reimbursement of Exit Operators

2013-09-20 Thread Moritz Bartl
On 09/19/2013 12:06 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only >> reimburse via wire transfer. >> This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is >> ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no >> chance at anonymity I don't think

Re: [tor-relays] safeguard operators

2013-09-20 Thread Moritz Bartl
On 09/19/2013 08:50 AM, Konrad Neitzel wrote: > The link is interesting but I still do not see the point. Even if there > is a non profit organization created which might have an address at a > lawyer (I come from Germany) it is not really safeguarding the > operators. Creating an organization aro

[tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread That Guy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > You're probably fine, especially if not running an exit. You didn't list > your home country, though; I'm assuming United States. > Best, > -Gordon M. While I know you have vastly more knowledge and experience than me and often my observations or

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread Moritz Bartl
On 09/20/2013 04:17 PM, That Guy wrote: > While I know you have vastly more knowledge and experience than me and > often my observations or worries are doe to me mis-understanding > something but about the comment above, I have experienced issues > running a non-exit relay pretty soon after it goi

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread David Carlson
On 9/20/2013 9:17 AM, That Guy wrote: > > You're probably fine, especially if not running an exit. You didn't > list your home country, though; I'm assuming United States. > > > Best, > > -Gordon M. > > While I know you have vastly more knowledge and experience than me and > often my observations

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread AVee
On 2013-09-20 16:17, That Guy wrote: You're probably fine, especially if not running an exit. You didn't list your home country, though; I'm assuming United States. Best, -Gordon M. While I know you have vastly more knowledge and experience than me and often my observations or worries are d

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread David Carlson
On 9/20/2013 10:23 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote: > On 09/20/2013 04:17 PM, That Guy wrote: >> While I know you have vastly more knowledge and experience than me and >> often my observations or worries are doe to me mis-understanding >> something but about the comment above, I have experienced issues >>

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0500, David Carlson wrote: > Considering > more sophisticated methods to detect and differentiate legitimate > activity from nefarious activity would be too difficult, i suppose. The step after that is when they intentionally over-list in order to try to influ

[tor-relays] State of the art in NAT busting?

2013-09-20 Thread Gordon Morehouse
I have a question which relates to my ongoing groundwork to build a Raspberry Pi (and hopefully Beagle and Cubie) friendly set of Debian packaged programs which can turn one of these small, low-power machines into a plug n' forget Tor relay. What is the start of the art in NAT hole punching if

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread krishna e bera
On 13-09-20 11:23 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote: > On 09/20/2013 04:17 PM, That Guy wrote: >> ... I have experienced issues >> running a non-exit relay pretty soon after it going up and though I have >> no idea if there is a connection, I started to get more trouble after >> the doubling of connections a

[tor-relays] Is this HAL?

2013-09-20 Thread I
What should be made of this considering there can't be many computers still running from 1970?Sep 21 05:22:01.021 [Warning] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at 76.73.17.194:9090.  It seems that our clock is ahead by 15969 days, 3 hours, 22 minutes, or that theirs is behind. To

Re: [tor-relays] non-exit risks?

2013-09-20 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:08:27PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote: > Once the network gets big enough so that each node and client doesnt > know all the nodes ip addresses, is there a compelling reason that ip > addresses of relays which are non-exit and non-guard need to be > published to the outside

Re: [tor-relays] Is this HAL?

2013-09-20 Thread staticsafe
On 9/21/2013 12:08 AM, I wrote: What should be made of this considering there can't be many computers still running from 1970? Sep 21 05:22:01.021 [Warning] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server at 76.73.17.194:9090. It seems that our clock is ahead by 15969 days, 3 hours, 22 minut