[tor-relays] Confusing bridge signs...

[trinity pointard]

Hi,

Your torrc is correct wrt to distribution mechanism (your bridge is
indicating "bridge-distribution-request any" in the descriptor it
sends), but for the record, the line would have been
"BridgeDistribution any".
A bridge uses less bandwidth than a relay, but it's still a proxy. At
5GB per month, you'd be providing a steady 16kbps over the month, or a
single mbps for little over 11 hours. That's very little, if you can't
have more bandwidth (by using a provider with no bandwidth accounting,
or one that gives better pricing per bandwidth), I fear your bridge
won't be very useful at all. Mine consumes between a few hundred GB
and a few TB depending on the distribution mechanism.

Are you sure your bridge is reachable? Bridgestrap reports suggest it isn't.
As the bridge operator, you should know its bridge line. Can you test
it with Tor Browser to make sure?
Given your accounting limits, it could be unreachable because
currently hibernating. Or you could have a firewall issue, or
something else.
I believe not passing bridgestrap can explain not being assigned a
distribution mechanism.

It might also explain why it would be considered blocked in Russia: if
it's not reachable from anywhere, it's not reachable from Russia. An
other possibility, given you use 443 for your ORPort, is that your
bridge was indeed detected by just scanning the whole internet. The
ORPort is very recognizable (enough that some of my former bridges
ended up tagged "tor" on Shodan) so it should be put on a port that's
less likely to be scanned.

Regards,
trinity-1686a

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 21:29, Keifer Bly <keifer.bly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Where in the torrc file would I set it to any? I am looking for a way to run a bridge without being charged a huge amount of money for it, and I was curious how it would have been detected by Russia if noone had used the bridge there? Thanks.
> --Keifer
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:45 AM <lists at for-privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Samstag, 18. Februar 2023 18:56:00 CET Keifer Bly wrote:
>> > Ok. Here is the torrc file:
>> >
>> >   GNU nano 3.2                                   /etc/tor/torrc
>> >
>> >
>> > Nickname gbridge
>> > ORPort 443
>> > SocksPort 0
>> > BridgeRelay 1
>> > PublishServerDescriptor bridge
>> > ServerTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy
>> > ServerTransportListenAddr obfs4 0.0.0.0:8080
>> > ExtOrPort auto
>> > Log notice file /var/log/tor/notices.log
>> > ExitPolicy reject *:*
>> > AccountingMax 5 GB
>> > ContactInfo keiferdodderblyyatgmaildoddercom
>> >
>> >
>> > Where in this torrc file is that configured?
>> Then set it to 'any' and wait 24-48 hours to see what happens. Maybe there was
>> an error in the db.
>>
>> If your bridge is still not distributed, it could be due to the outdated
>> obfs4proxy or because of 'AccountingMax 5 GB'.
>> Sorry but, 5 GB is a 'fart in the wind' the accounting period would only be a
>> few hours a month. It's not even worth distributing them because it would only
>> frustrate the users.
>>
>> > And how would it be blocked in
>> > Russia already if it hasn't even been used?
>> Why should this new feature of the bridgedb, more precisely the rdsys backend,
>> have anything to do with whether someone uses a bridge? This is a bridgedb
>> distribution method introduced by meskio.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ╰_╯ Ciao Marco!
>>
>> Debian GNU/Linux
>>
>> It's free software and it gives you freedom!_______________________________________________
>> tor-relays mailing list
>> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays