On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
On Dienstag, 16. August 2022 16:36:52 CEST Tom Yates wrote:
i've been grumbled at in a way that makes me want to validate my exit
policy before dismissing the grumble.
I don't know exactly what you want to test there. You can see what you
hav
On Mittwoch, 17. August 2022 19:31:48 CEST Logforme wrote:
> I run the relay 8F6A78B1EA917F2BF221E87D14361C050A70CCC3
>
> I have tried to mitigate the current DoS by implemented connection
> limits in my iptables using Toralf's template: More than 25 connection
> during 10 mins and you end up on m
On 8/18/22 18:19, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
D767979FE4C99D310A46EC49037E9FE7E3F64E9D is a particularly frequent
naughty boy.
;-) It is very, very unlikely that there is a naughty relay in AS680.
That relay most likely does DNS-, BW- or network healing test in the Tor
network.
https://metric
On 8/18/22 18:19, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
10, 20 or more users can have set up the circuits using the same relays.
kantorkel's Article10 relays have more than 100 connections per IP to me.
IMO there'se no 1:1 relation of circuits to TCP connections, or ?
Doesn't 1 TCP connection between 2
On 8/18/22 18:19, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
kantorkel's Article10 relays have more than 100 connections per IP to me.
Those IPs mostly close with an error:
$> grep -h " 185.220.101.*" /tmp/orstatus.*9051 | awk '{ print $1 }' |
sort | uniq -c
341 CONNECTRESET
78 DONE
783 IOERROR
On Donnerstag, 18. August 2022 19:22:44 CEST Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 8/18/22 18:19, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
> >> D767979FE4C99D310A46EC49037E9FE7E3F64E9D is a particularly frequent
> >> naughty boy.
> >
> > ;-) It is very, very unlikely that there is a naughty relay in AS680.
> > That rel
Hey,
Apologies for getting back a bit late. While the project wasn't in a stage
where contributing would have been easy at that time, now, I have worked to
make sure that understanding the codebase and contributing to it is a
breeze for anyone.
In the current stage, most of the heavy-lifting piec
On Donnerstag, 18. August 2022 19:25:54 CEST Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 8/18/22 18:19, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
> > 10, 20 or more users can have set up the circuits using the same relays.
> > kantorkel's Article10 relays have more than 100 connections per IP to me.
>
> IMO there'se no 1:1 rel
On 8/18/22 21:31, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
If that's really the case, I can set up the ip|nftables rules much more
strictly.
Currently I do have it set to "3" [1], before it was 2, which seemed to
work too.
[1] https://github.com/toralf/torutils/blob/main/ipv4-rules.sh
--
Toralf
On Donnerstag, 18. August 2022 19:47:45 CEST Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 8/18/22 18:19, li...@for-privacy.net wrote:
> > kantorkel's Article10 relays have more than 100 connections per IP to me.
>
> Those IPs mostly close with an error:
>
> $> grep -h " 185.220.101.*" /tmp/orstatus.*9051 | awk '{
I have 1 relay (40D13096BBD11AF198CE61DEE4EAECCE5472F2E7) that according
to the metrics is always bouncing between online and offline, sometimes
multiple times per day. The logs show it running the whole time and
when the metrics also show it running, the uptime continues to increase
correctly
11 matches
Mail list logo
