Hello,
I've been running a non-exit relay on a EDIS VPS located in Spain for 5
months.
Yesterday, without warning, I received an email because apparently I was
abussing the network and my VPS was suspended.
I was asked to reduce the amount of traffic Tor is allowed to use and
after that I received
Hello Torizen,
I don't think that they ment the law.
Check the ToS of EDIS to see if it's true.
~Josef
Am 09.01.2015 um 13:00 schrieb Torizen:
> Hello,
>
> I've been running a non-exit relay on a EDIS VPS located in Spain for 5
> months.
> Yesterday, without warning, I received an email because
Hi,
it seems the ISP just changed its Terms of Service (TOS).
I'm sure that a non-exit relay shouldn't be a (legal) problem in Spain.
Juris Vetra
https://www.torservers.net/
Am 09.01.2015 um 13:00 schrieb Torizen:
> Hello,
>
> I've been running a non-exit relay on a EDIS VPS located in Spain fo
Have you informed EDIS in advance? As far as I know if you plan to run
exit nodes on a EDIS server you have to tell them so you get into a
private VLAN.
Greetings
On 2015-01-09 13:00, Torizen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been running a non-exit relay on a EDIS VPS located in Spain for 5
> months.
>
Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner:
> Hello Torizen,
>
> I don't think that they ment the law.
> Check the ToS of EDIS to see if it's true.
>
> ~Josef
>
> Am 09.01.2015 um 13:00 schrieb Torizen:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been running a non-exit relay on a EDIS VPS located in Spain for 5
>> months.
>> Yesterda
See under "Banned applications":
*
Tor/i2p/similar exit servers (bridge, entry and middle are fine
until further notice)
After reading the document I found out that I'm not allowed to do
anything with the servers :-) TeamSpeak is also not allowed ... But
that's just a side note.
~ Jose
Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner:
> See under "Banned applications":
>
> *
> Tor/i2p/similar exit servers (bridge, entry and middle are fine
> until further notice)
>
> After reading the document I found out that I'm not allowed to do
> anything with the servers :-) TeamSpeak is also not allow
A recent court case in Austria, where a Tor exit relay operator was brought
to court because of traffic passing through his tor node, has made EDIS
reconsider their Tor policy.
EDIS are an Austrian company.
On 9 January 2015 at 12:00, Torizen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been running a non-exit rel
Juris - torservers.net:
> Hi,
>
> it seems the ISP just changed its Terms of Service (TOS).
> I'm sure that a non-exit relay shouldn't be a (legal) problem in Spain.
>
> Juris Vetra
> https://www.torservers.net/
>
> Am 09.01.2015 um 13:00 schrieb Torizen:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been running a non-
On 2015-01-09 12:35:02 (+), Torizen wrote:
>
>
> Only Tor exit relays are against EDIS TOS. As far as I can tell EDIS is
> also listed on the GoodBadISPs on the Tor wiki where it states bridges
> and non-exit relays are allowed.
>
> What worries me is the fact that according to them some new
There is no new law in Spain regarding non-exit relays.
So EDIS or the ISP in Spain has changed its TOS.
Would be nice to get further informations about this.
Juris Vetra
https://www.torservers.net/
Am 09.01.2015 um 13:54 schrieb Torizen:
> Hello,
>
> How do you know that? EDIS' ISP in Spain is
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:20:42 +, eric gisse wrote:
...
> forwarders => [ '2001:4860:4860::8844',
> '2001:1608:10:25::1c04:b12f', '2600::1' ],
What are these addresses? (Did I miss that upthread?)
Esp. the 2600::1 looks nice, and suitable for a certain magazine. :-)
(And t
> 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
David Serrano:
> On 2015-01-09 12:35:02 (+), Torizen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Only Tor exit relays are against EDIS TOS. As far as I can tell EDIS is
>> also listed on the GoodBadISPs on the Tor wiki where it states bridges
>> and non-exit relays are allowed.
>>
>> What worries me is the fact that accor
On January 9, 2015 4:40:51 PM Torizen wrote:
Hi,
David Serrano:
> On 2015-01-09 12:35:02 (+), Torizen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Only Tor exit relays are against EDIS TOS. As far as I can tell EDIS is
>> also listed on the GoodBadISPs on the Tor wiki where it states bridges
>> and non-exit relays are
Sebastian Urbach:
> On January 9, 2015 4:40:51 PM Torizen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> David Serrano:
>> > On 2015-01-09 12:35:02 (+), Torizen wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Only Tor exit relays are against EDIS TOS. As far as I can tell
>> EDIS is
>> >> also listed on the GoodBadISPs on the Tor wiki where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hey guys,
wanna share some current insights regarding secure shell(ssh) on how to harden
sys after the German 'Der Spiegel' disclosed documents.h
https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html
Greet#z
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
Various public ipv6 dns servers, and yes that one is Google's.
Resolver traffic is split across all the forwarders and I'm caching
everything so I'm OK with it.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:20:42 +, eric gisse wrote:
> ...
>> forwarders
hi,
eric gisse:
> I even threw on a squid proxy on regular http and that's caching
> something like 5-10% of all requests and overall http bandwidth.
Are you saying you are routing exit traffic through a transparent squid
http proxy?
If that is the case, please do not interfere with exit traffic
Why? People say 'DO NOT MESS WITH TRAFFIC' but in the same breath they
say 'BUT USE A CACHING DNS RESOLVER'.
This is an internally inconsistent attitude, and is not consistent
with how large scale operations function either. Tools like varnish,
CDN's, memcache, dns caching, etc are all common - an
eric gisse wrote:
> Why? People say 'DO NOT MESS WITH TRAFFIC' but in the same breath they
> say 'BUT USE A CACHING DNS RESOLVER'.
Because the interface level at which exit traffic proper occurs is TCP,
and the interface contract for the client is that the TCP stream will be
direct to the intended
If you're caching exit traffic and a very naughty person uses your exit,
you've potentially cached "evidence" (to be seized). Also likely has
interesting legal questions, eg. 'if you're actually storing the
content, then do you "possess" it?' ymmv with jurisdiction and ianal.
eric gisse:
> Why? Pe
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:18 PM, cacahuatl wrote:
> If you're caching exit traffic and a very naughty person uses your exit,
> you've potentially cached "evidence" (to be seized).
That logic applies equally to DNS; indeed, it is why the CMU Tor exit
*doesn't* run a DNS cache.
(It talks to CMU's D
This isn't exactly a convincing argument.
The HTTP specification explicitly supports caching. On a protocol
level, this is quite acceptable and standard. The method I am using is
precisely what ISP's do in scenarios where they want to maximize their
bandwidth.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Drak
eric gisse wrote:
> This isn't exactly a convincing argument.
>
> The HTTP specification explicitly supports caching.
But the TCP specification doesn't. Nor is the Tor client signaling
to you that they want an HTTP connection and not a raw TCP connection.
Whether they happen to be passing octets
That's my point. The logic applies to either both or none.
Plus the logic starts to get warped when you wonder "So do you BadExit
every node that runs on an ISP that caches traffic?"
What about ISP's (and openDNS) that NXDOMAIN trap to insert advertising?
Regarding 'cached evidence', logs are sh
eric gisse wrote:
> Plus the logic starts to get warped when you wonder "So do you BadExit
> every node that runs on an ISP that caches traffic?"
>
> What about ISP's (and openDNS) that NXDOMAIN trap to insert advertising?
These, I think, are more general points that have not adequately been
reso
On 2015-01-09 19:21, eric gisse wrote:
What about ISP's (and openDNS) that NXDOMAIN trap to insert advertising?
Just a quick point, OpenDNS doesn't do that anymore.
https://www.opendns.com/no-more-ads/
(Others do, and it's still a terrible idea there, but OpenDNS has seen
the light and/or fo
Drake Wilson wrote:
> But the TCP specification doesn't. Nor is the Tor client signaling
> to you that they want an HTTP connection and not a raw TCP connection.
> Whether they happen to be passing octets over it that correspond to an
> HTTP stream is irrelevant.
Or alternatively, let me put the
29 matches
Mail list logo
