Re: [tor-relays] [Relay] Hibernation Reset

> On 7/21/2015 11:09 AM, teor wrote: >> >>> On 21 Jul 2015, at 03:12 , Tor Operator >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi gents, >>> >>> I rencetly had one of my relay fall into hibernation. It seems that simply >>> restarting the service doesn't change the hibernation status

Re: [tor-relays] Running a relay in the Netherlands

++ 21/07/15 20:59 +0200 - Jan Hendrik den Besten: >I have my node running here in The Netherlands at UPC, now merged with >Ziggo. I contacted them once: back then they did not have a problem running >even an exit node. If that is a connection at your home and if that is an exit-node, be aware of

Re: [tor-relays] Running a relay in the Netherlands

On 22 July 2015 at 10:44, Rejo Zenger wrote: > ++ 21/07/15 20:59 +0200 - Jan Hendrik den Besten: >>I have my node running here in The Netherlands at UPC, now merged with >>Ziggo. I contacted them once: back then they did not have a problem running >>even an exit node. > > If that is a connection a

Re: [tor-relays] How to Run High Capacity Tor Relays

Robert: you're right. The group in general isn't very knowledge about Windows. I'm a Windows sysadmin and spent a long time deciphering the Tor documentation on windows and it's poor. Best info was another operator who posted on the mailing list months ago. I've reached out to the website mainta

Re: [tor-relays] How to Run High Capacity Tor Relays

I think it's unfair to characterize the Tor community as a Linux club, or religious about operating systems. There is a whole big world of operating systems out there, and most (not all) have a very POSIX flavor to them that makes it pretty easy to generalize advice on running the service. The w

[tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

Hello tor-relays@ We are still working on your nice relay incentive as and part of that we've been looking at how to partition relays into different families with it's not 100% obvious what that groupings should be. For those that are interested in the family connections, I have some pretty PDFs

Re: [tor-relays] Running a relay in the Netherlands

> On 22 Jul 2015, at 20:37 , Pascal Terjan wrote: > > On 22 July 2015 at 10:44, Rejo Zenger wrote: >> ++ 21/07/15 20:59 +0200 - Jan Hendrik den Besten: >>> I have my node running here in The Netherlands at UPC, now merged with >>> Ziggo. I contacted them once: back then they did not have a prob

Re: [tor-relays] How to Run High Capacity Tor Relays

> On 22 Jul 2015, at 22:14 , Ben Serebin wrote: > > Robert: you're right. The group in general isn't very knowledge about > Windows. I'm a Windows sysadmin and spent a long time deciphering the Tor > documentation on windows and it's poor. Best info was another operator who > posted on the ma

Re: [tor-relays] How to Run High Capacity Tor Relays

I attempted to edit the following page under Win32 to add a Windows install guide and not able to (like I said, I was able to edit the exit page) https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki And Under Win32 This page is 404 "​Vidalia is a cross-platform controller GUI for Tor" I'd like to get

Re: [tor-relays] Running a relay in the Netherlands

On 2015-07-19 23:06, gunes acar wrote: > On 2015-07-18 15:06, Dmytro Dudenko wrote: >> Speaking of BeNeLux, > >> is Belgium any worse in tolerating a Tor-server at Home (Belgacom) >> / at Uni Campus (will not say what Uni)? > >> In the case of Uni Campus, one needs to run purely a non-exit >> rel

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:31:58PM +0800, Virgil Griffith wrote: > I present three graphs of all Tor relays (nodes) with at > least one family connection (edge). Thanks Virgil! I think the clear first conclusion here is that our current method, writing symmetric fingerprints into torrcs, is not

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family prop 242

references: https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/242-better-families.txt https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/15060 ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

> Thanks Virgil! Anytime. I don't know the opportunity cost for implementing it, but there's always proposal #242 ;) https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/242-better-families.txt -V On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:31:58PM

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

Out of curiosity, what is the need for ensuring a node cannot be put into a family without its consent? What would be wrong with, say, a FamilyName directive? Set the same FamilyName on each node you control, and routes will avoid multiples. On 07/22/2015 03:48 PM, Virgil Griffith wrote: >> Thank

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

> Out of curiosity, what is the need for ensuring a node cannot be > put into a family without its consent? What would be wrong with, > say, a FamilyName directive? Set the same FamilyName on each node > you control, and routes will avoid multiples. That would give an adversary the ability to re

Re: [tor-relays] How to Run High Capacity Tor Relays

> On 23 Jul 2015, at 02:24 , Ben Serebin wrote: > > I attempted to edit the following page under Win32 to add a Windows install > guide and not able to (like I said, I was able to edit the exit page) > > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki That page is WikiStart and it's locked down

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

True, but unless one family controls a large part of the network (which is bad even with the current system), this is barely worse than an attacker flooding the current network with new relays in a family. I believe what you describe is possible in the current system as well. The only thing I can

Re: [tor-relays] Fwd: Tor family graphs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > I believe what you describe is possible in the current system as > well. No it is currently not possible, since the current MyFamily design requires mutual consent. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVsAFrAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0Cv8P/1a/TFS6wsF

Re: [tor-relays] OpenBSD: tor rc script: don't kill unrelated tor instances (patch)

The underlying problem has been fixed in rc.subr and no longer requires rc script customization to get a sane behavior by default. http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/rc.d/rc.subr?rev=1.99&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __