[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #5028 [Ooni]: Tor bridge scanning
#5028: Tor bridge scanning
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: hellais | Owner: runa
Type: project | Status: assigned
Priority: normal | Milestone: Sponsor F: March 15, 2012
Component: Ooni | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Comment(by karsten):
I ran a scan on my host in .de this morning. I scanned 313 bridges in the
HTTPS pool that were contained in the bridge pool assignments file from
March 13, 06:30:18 UTC and in the network status published at 06:37:04
UTC. The scan ran from 07:19:30 to 07:23:44 UTC and resulted in 300
bridges being reachable and 13 bridges being unreachable:
- 299 bridges that were found as reachable were contained in both network
statuses published at 06:37:04 and 07:37:04 UTC. Scan results are
correct.
- 1 bridge that was found as reachable was only contained in the network
status published at 06:37:04 UTC and not in the one published at 07:37:04
UTC. That means that Tonga could not reach this bridge, but the scanner
could. This is an actual false positive.
- 9 bridges that were found as unreachable had the Running flag in the
assignments file from 06:30:18 UTC and in the network status from 06:37:04
UTC, but lost it in the network status published at 07:37:04 UTC. These
negative scan results are correct.
- 2 bridges that were found as unreachable were contained in the
assignments file from 06:30:18 UTC but did not have the Running flag in
the network statuses published at 06:37:04 and 07:37:04 UTC. These
bridges went offline between 6:30 and 6:37 and should not have been
scanned at all. Can't blame the scanner for that.
- 2 bridges that were found as unreachable were contained in the
assignments file and all both network statuses, and they were reachable in
a subsequent scan at 09:00:55 UTC. These 2 are actual false negatives.
So, 1 false positive and 2 false negatives. Should be fine.
The next step will be to run a similar scan from .cn.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5028#comment:35>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs