[tor-talk] ISP CenturyLink Blocking Tor?

[n***@moltennetworks.co.uk]

I have been at a close friend's house recently and his provider is
CenturyLink (at home I use TimeWarner Cable). I tried to download Tor
Tails (over BitTorrent) and the Internet literally dropped so I closed
BitTorrrent, afterwards I launched the Tor Browser Bundle and then my
computer was disconnected from the router and couldn't reconnect and
no one at the house could access the Internet, we had to reboot the
router to fix the issue. I then enabled Pluggable Transports
(meet-google or something like that) and now I'm able to connect to
Tor without any issues. This really concerns me as I was able to
repeat the crash by launching Tor Browser Bundle and crash the router
again.

This worries me as I can see a direct link (Launch Tor Browsre Bundle
without Pluggable Transports) and (Router and Internet require
Reboot). Could this be a form of censorship within the United States?

I will be returning home today but this is really worrying me as it
could be a form of censorship within the United States.

Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts about this?

[Matthew Finkel]

Post by n***@moltennetworks.co.uk
I have been at a close friend's house recently and his provider is
CenturyLink (at home I use TimeWarner Cable). I tried to download
Tor Tails (over BitTorrent) and the Internet literally dropped so I
closed BitTorrrent, afterwards I launched the Tor Browser Bundle and
then my computer was disconnected from the router and couldn't
reconnect and no one at the house could access the Internet, we had
to reboot the router to fix the issue. I then enabled Pluggable
Transports (meet-google or something like that) and now I'm able to
connect to Tor without any issues. This really concerns me as I was
able to repeat the crash by launching Tor Browser Bundle and crash
the router again.

Wow. That is quite coincidence. Can you ask your friend to contact
CenturyLink and ask them why this happened. It appears no one has
experienced this or, at least, no one updated the Good/Bad ISP wiki
page with this[0].

You probably chose the meek-google pluggable transport[1]. Basically,
it takes advantage of the fact that someone can run a webserver on
Google's infrastructure (using AppEngine) such that when you establish
a HTTPS session with the webserver, your ISP only see the connection
to Google's servers and not the specific server you're connecting to;
the specific webserver (meek) is defined within the encrypted portion.
When Google receives the connection, it correctly passes the
connection to the meek webserver. From there, the webserver then sends
your connection to a Tor Bridge, which is your first hop into the Tor
network. It's a very cool idea and it seems to work very well. The
current Tor Browser also supports connecting to a meek instance running
on Amazon's EC2 infrastructure and on Microsoft's Azure infrastructure.

[0] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISPs
[1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/meek#Overview

Post by n***@moltennetworks.co.uk
This worries me as I can see a direct link (Launch Tor Browsre
Bundle without Pluggable Transports) and (Router and Internet
require Reboot). Could this be a form of censorship within the
United States?

Sounds like it. It would be great if someone directly asks CenturyLink
about this.

Post by n***@moltennetworks.co.uk
I will be returning home today but this is really worrying me as it
could be a form of censorship within the United States.
Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts about this?

It's interesting that resetting the modem allowed you to access the
internet again. I wonder if the internet connection block you
experienced was based on the modem's IP address, and when you reset
the modem it was given a new dynamic IP address - hence bypassing the
block. This reminds me a little of the way China handles connections[2],
but it's still a little early to make a serious comparison.

The more information we can get about this, the better.

[2] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/closer-look-great-firewall-china


Also, as a general aside, please remember that trying to run a
bittorrent client over Tor is a bad idea[3] (the first half is the
relevant portion). I'm not sure if this was the intention, but just a
a friendly reminder :)

[3] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea

[Yuri]

Post by Matthew Finkel
Wow. That is quite coincidence. Can you ask your friend to contact
CenturyLink and ask them why this happened. It appears no one has
experienced this or, at least, no one updated the Good/Bad ISP wiki
page with this[0].

I didn't get the OP's e-mail, but (assuming this is in US) customers
have a lot of leverage. Just keep tor and torrent clients running, and
call their customer service, and demand an explanation why the service
they charge you money for doesn't work. Let them send the live
technician to fix the problem. Escalate this as much as possible.
Eventually they will have to fix your connection (with the mentioned
services running). And if they don't, you can sue them in small claims
court and demand compensation for all time, effort, suffering, emotional
distress, deprivation of service, etc, etc, etc. And you will likely
easily win the case.

Just trying to work around the problem in technical ways with bridges,
Pluggable Transport, trying to hide tor traffic isn't necessarily the
right way to deal with the problem.

Yuri

[Ben Tasker]

Looking at their info page -
http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/ -
it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program.

If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious traffic,
the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user.

Is the OP's friend using non-Century link DNS? Wondering if it could be as
simple as an over-enthusiastic detection policy triggering the walled
garden. I've no idea how Century Link achieve redirecting to the
notification page, but if they simply return the IP of one of their
servers, using external DNS servers could easily break that leading to the
impression that your internet has dropped out.

As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a new
IP, so effectively cancelling a block.

Post by Matthew Finkel
Wow. That is quite coincidence. Can you ask your friend to contact
CenturyLink and ask them why this happened. It appears no one has
experienced this or, at least, no one updated the Good/Bad ISP wiki
page with this[0].

I didn't get the OP's e-mail, but (assuming this is in US) customers have
a lot of leverage. Just keep tor and torrent clients running, and call
their customer service, and demand an explanation why the service they
charge you money for doesn't work. Let them send the live technician to fix
the problem. Escalate this as much as possible. Eventually they will have
to fix your connection (with the mentioned services running). And if they
don't, you can sue them in small claims court and demand compensation for
all time, effort, suffering, emotional distress, deprivation of service,
etc, etc, etc. And you will likely easily win the case.
Just trying to work around the problem in technical ways with bridges,
Pluggable Transport, trying to hide tor traffic isn't necessarily the right
way to deal with the problem.
Yuri
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[Yuri]

Post by Ben Tasker
Looking at their info page -
http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/ -
it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program.
If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious traffic,
the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user.

This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it
doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients
are neither.

Post by Ben Tasker
As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a new
IP, so effectively cancelling a block.

Not familiar with CenturyLink, but with Comcast digital cable only
rebooting with changed client MAC address would cause an IP change.
Otherwise IP is very persistent.

Yuri

[Ben Tasker]

Post by Yuri
This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it

doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.

As it has been known for some infections to establish a connection back to
their C&C via Tor, it's not inconceivable an ISP (or more likely,
who-ever's providing their kit) might apply a policy which could
(deliberately or otherwise) wind up blocking Tor. Whether Tor is malware
has no real bearing, what matters is whether it's traffic is perceived as
such by the ISP

I missed the part about the torrent client, though it sounds like the
behaviour was slightly different. In either case though, the OP's
description makes it sound like the external connection dropped in it's
entirety - for any kind of filtering/blocking that's massive overkill. If
you were being restricted to a walled garden, outside connectivity might
appear unavailable unless you were going to a whitelisted IP.

On my (UK) ISP, a reboot of the router pretty much guarantees a new IP,
though I have also been with providers where that wasn't the case.

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
Looking at their info page -
http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/ -
it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program.
If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious traffic,
the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user.

This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it
doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.
As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a new

Post by Ben Tasker
IP, so effectively cancelling a block.

Not familiar with CenturyLink, but with Comcast digital cable only
rebooting with changed client MAC address would cause an IP change.
Otherwise IP is very persistent.
Yuri
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[w***@riseup.net]

This link --> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=centurylink+tor

provided the following piece of info:

[tor-talk] "zeus" virus - Mailing Lists
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-August/025327.html


Kind regards,

Matt

Post by Ben Tasker

Post by Yuri
This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it

doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.
As it has been known for some infections to establish a connection back to
their C&C via Tor, it's not inconceivable an ISP (or more likely,
who-ever's providing their kit) might apply a policy which could
(deliberately or otherwise) wind up blocking Tor. Whether Tor is malware
has no real bearing, what matters is whether it's traffic is perceived as
such by the ISP
I missed the part about the torrent client, though it sounds like the
behaviour was slightly different. In either case though, the OP's
description makes it sound like the external connection dropped in it's
entirety - for any kind of filtering/blocking that's massive overkill. If
you were being restricted to a walled garden, outside connectivity might
appear unavailable unless you were going to a whitelisted IP.
On my (UK) ISP, a reboot of the router pretty much guarantees a new IP,
though I have also been with providers where that wasn't the case.

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
Looking at their info page -
http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/ -
it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program.
If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious traffic,
the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user.

This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it
doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.
As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a new

Post by Ben Tasker
IP, so effectively cancelling a block.

Not familiar with CenturyLink, but with Comcast digital cable only
rebooting with changed client MAC address would cause an IP change.
Otherwise IP is very persistent.
Yuri
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

--
Ben Tasker
https://www.bentasker.co.uk

[Max Bond]

Hello,

I've been using CenturyLink for ADSL in the US for five or six years
(coincidentally this is my last day with them, so I probably won't be able
to do much testing), and I have never had a problem using Tor; as soon as I
saw this thread, I fired up Tor Browser and accessed a few websites. I
didn't use pluggable transports and everything went smoothly.

I can confirm that restarting the router changes the IP address, and that
they have some level of remote management (I've noticed them installing
firmware updates to my router.)

I've never heard of this "protection program" but I doubt its the cause.
I've never known it to be zealous, let alone overzealous; I scanned about
twenty-five thousand, multiple times, to gather statistics. I never heard a
peep out of
them. I imagine that they'd watch for large volumes of obvious attack
traffic before they targeted Tor, from a malware perspective.

All that being said, perhaps this is a regional difference.

Hope that helps,
Max

Post by Ben Tasker

Post by Yuri
This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it

doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.
As it has been known for some infections to establish a connection back to
their C&C via Tor, it's not inconceivable an ISP (or more likely,
who-ever's providing their kit) might apply a policy which could
(deliberately or otherwise) wind up blocking Tor. Whether Tor is malware
has no real bearing, what matters is whether it's traffic is perceived as
such by the ISP
I missed the part about the torrent client, though it sounds like the
behaviour was slightly different. In either case though, the OP's
description makes it sound like the external connection dropped in it's
entirety - for any kind of filtering/blocking that's massive overkill. If
you were being restricted to a walled garden, outside connectivity might
appear unavailable unless you were going to a whitelisted IP.
On my (UK) ISP, a reboot of the router pretty much guarantees a new IP,
though I have also been with providers where that wasn't the case.

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
Looking at their info page -

http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
-
it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program.
If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious traffic,
the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user.

This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it
doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.
As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a

new

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
IP, so effectively cancelling a block.

Not familiar with CenturyLink, but with Comcast digital cable only
rebooting with changed client MAC address would cause an IP change.
Otherwise IP is very persistent.
Yuri
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

--
Ben Tasker
https://www.bentasker.co.uk
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[Max Bond]

Oops, typo.

What I meant to say was I scanned about twenty-five thousand hosts for
Heartbleed.

Post by Max Bond
Hello,
I've been using CenturyLink for ADSL in the US for five or six years
(coincidentally this is my last day with them, so I probably won't be able
to do much testing), and I have never had a problem using Tor; as soon as I
saw this thread, I fired up Tor Browser and accessed a few websites. I
didn't use pluggable transports and everything went smoothly.
I can confirm that restarting the router changes the IP address, and that
they have some level of remote management (I've noticed them installing
firmware updates to my router.)
I've never heard of this "protection program" but I doubt its the cause.
I've never known it to be zealous, let alone overzealous; I scanned about
twenty-five thousand, multiple times, to gather statistics. I never heard a
peep out of
them. I imagine that they'd watch for large volumes of obvious attack
traffic before they targeted Tor, from a malware perspective.
All that being said, perhaps this is a regional difference.
Hope that helps,
Max

Post by Ben Tasker

Post by Yuri
This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it

doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are
neither.
As it has been known for some infections to establish a connection back to
their C&C via Tor, it's not inconceivable an ISP (or more likely,
who-ever's providing their kit) might apply a policy which could
(deliberately or otherwise) wind up blocking Tor. Whether Tor is malware
has no real bearing, what matters is whether it's traffic is perceived as
such by the ISP
I missed the part about the torrent client, though it sounds like the
behaviour was slightly different. In either case though, the OP's
description makes it sound like the external connection dropped in it's
entirety - for any kind of filtering/blocking that's massive overkill. If
you were being restricted to a walled garden, outside connectivity might
appear unavailable unless you were going to a whitelisted IP.
On my (UK) ISP, a reboot of the router pretty much guarantees a new IP,
though I have also been with providers where that wasn't the case.

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
Looking at their info page -

http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
-
it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program.
If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious

traffic,

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user.

This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it
doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients

are

Post by Yuri
neither.
As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a

new

Post by Yuri

Post by Ben Tasker
IP, so effectively cancelling a block.

Not familiar with CenturyLink, but with Comcast digital cable only
rebooting with changed client MAC address would cause an IP change.
Otherwise IP is very persistent.
Yuri
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

--
Ben Tasker
https://www.bentasker.co.uk
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[n***@moltennetworks.co.uk]

I waited and switched my laptop back to Debian Linux from Windows 8.1
and build my WiFi Driver from source. (it was a Microsoft Driver for
the Edimax Nano Wifi) (the source was from edimax) and afterwards I
was able to connect to Tor without crashing the entire WiFi Network. I
wonder if Microsoft's Driver was tapped or something. I agree the US
is not as safe as it used to be.

Post by Yuri

Post by Matthew Finkel
Wow. That is quite coincidence. Can you ask your friend to contact
CenturyLink and ask them why this happened. It appears no one has
experienced this or, at least, no one updated the Good/Bad ISP wiki
page with this[0].

I didn't get the OP's e-mail, but (assuming this is in US) customers
have a lot of leverage. Just keep tor and torrent clients running,
and call their customer service, and demand an explanation why the
service they charge you money for doesn't work. Let them send the
live technician to fix the problem. Escalate this as much as
possible. Eventually they will have to fix your connection (with the
mentioned services running). And if they don't, you can sue them in
small claims court and demand compensation for all time, effort,
suffering, emotional distress, deprivation of service, etc, etc,
etc. And you will likely easily win the case.
Just trying to work around the problem in technical ways with
bridges, Pluggable Transport, trying to hide tor traffic isn't
necessarily the right way to deal with the problem.
Yuri
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[Öyvind Saether]

Post by n***@moltennetworks.co.uk
I have been at a close friend's house recently and his provider is
CenturyLink (at home I use TimeWarner Cable). I tried to download
Tor Tails (over BitTorrent) and the Internet literally dropped so I
closed BitTorrrent, afterwards I launched the Tor Browser Bundle and
then my computer was disconnected from the router and couldn't
reconnect and no one at the house could access the Internet, we had
to reboot the router to fix the issue. I then enabled Pluggable
Transports (meet-google or something like that) and now I'm able to
connect to Tor without any issues. This really concerns me as I was
able to repeat the crash by launching Tor Browser Bundle and crash
the router again.

It sounds like they are cracking down on anonymity. I advise you to get
out now because it will only get much, much worse[1].

It would be really interesting if you could ask your friend to describe
the details regarding his Internet connection. What type is it
(fiber/adsl/cable), what kind of router is he using and does this also
happen if he uses another compatible third-party modem/router? And if
he is willing to experiment then it would be great if he could figure
out more details on exactly how they are doing this.

This does sound like some kind of traffic analysis which just breaks it
if it matches Tor? On a happy note, I am glad to hear that pluggable
transports work and allow people in suppressive fascist regimes like
the US to use Tor.

[1]
http://static.everdot.org/video/War_Of_Terror/favourite_AJ_segment.mp4

[l.m]

***@moltennetworks.co.uk wrote:
[...] I then enabled Pluggable Transports
(meet-google or something like that) and now I'm able to connect to
Tor without any issues. This really concerns me as I was able to
repeat the crash by launching Tor Browser Bundle and crash the router

again.

Did you try without using PT? Does this problem with connecting to Tor
directly also occur if you connect to a bridge directly. If they're
blocking Tor they should figure out the bridge is being used to access
Tor and you will shortly experience an offline/non-connectable bridge
or modem/router problem. It's also interesting you say you were
disconnected from the *router* -- what about everyone else. You might
be able to disable remote admin of router settings but that won't stop
them from resetting the device altogether (which might have the
symptom of appearing to be disconnected from the router).

--leeroy

[Austin Hartzheim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Post by n***@moltennetworks.co.uk
I have been at a close friend's house recently and his provider is
CenturyLink (at home I use TimeWarner Cable). I tried to download
Tor Tails (over BitTorrent) and the Internet literally dropped so I
closed BitTorrrent, afterwards I launched the Tor Browser Bundle
and then my computer was disconnected from the router and couldn't
reconnect and no one at the house could access the Internet, we had
to reboot the router to fix the issue. I then enabled Pluggable
Transports (meet-google or something like that) and now I'm able to
connect to Tor without any issues. This really concerns me as I was
able to repeat the crash by launching Tor Browser Bundle and crash
the router again.
This worries me as I can see a direct link (Launch Tor Browsre
Bundle without Pluggable Transports) and (Router and Internet
require Reboot). Could this be a form of censorship within the
United States?
I will be returning home today but this is really worrying me as
it could be a form of censorship within the United States.
Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts about this?

As I understand the sequence of events:
1) Use BitTorrent
2) Connection drops
3) TBB cannot connect
4) You restart the router
5) You started using meek-google; everything is working

My first question is: between steps 4 and 5, did you try using Tor
without meek-google? If so, was it still unable to connect?

Some additional questions: Have you been able to replicate this issue
at all? Have you determined if it is BitTorrent which seems to cause
the connection to drop? Is it only downloading Tails that causes the
issue?

The reason I ask these questions is because I do have experience with
a wireless router that (to the extent I can determine) gets overloaded
by BitTorrent traffic. When this overload happens, the router
essentially stops relaying traffic and seems to drop the Wifi link.
However, the wireless router would continue to broadcast its SSID
(confirmed with airodump-ng), implying that it was still active to
some extent.

As you describe, other people using this router were unable to relay
traffic. Restarting the router would fix the problem.

I should also note that in this case the router is customer-supplied
and is separate from the modem supplied by the ISP.

Hopefully this is less alarming.

Austin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ExY7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Larry Brandt]

I have had CenturyLink phone service for over 28 years. I had their DSL
for much of that time but I ended up suing them for not delivering on
our basic contracted plan. Century Link is nearly impossible to
contact. I took me 2 years of phone calls and on-line forms to get
caller ID. If anyone can penetrate their personnel firewall, please
disclose to this group. In most on my dealings, CenturyLink was too
under-employed to respond to my requests.

[l.m]

"Larry Brandt" wrote:
If anyone can penetrate their personnel firewall, please
disclose to this group. In most on my dealings, CenturyLink was too
under-employed to respond to my requests.

The problem hasn't even been confirmed as censorship of Tor and you
want to dox them publically using Tor-talk. Is that what you think
Tor-talk is for? Yes of course lets all get right on that for you--so
we can attack their privacy the way they may (or may not) be attacking
their client's? Wrong list. Wrong way of looking at this.

--leeroy

[Ben Tasker]

Leeroy - I think what he meant was that if anyone can actually get through
to someone to talk to (and get a response) - as opposed to breaching a real
firewall and leaking staff details, at least that's the way I read it.

Post by Larry Brandt
If anyone can penetrate their personnel firewall, please
disclose to this group. In most on my dealings, CenturyLink was too
under-employed to respond to my requests.
The problem hasn't even been confirmed as censorship of Tor and you
want to dox them publically using Tor-talk. Is that what you think
Tor-talk is for? Yes of course lets all get right on that for you--so
we can attack their privacy the way they may (or may not) be attacking
their client's? Wrong list. Wrong way of looking at this.
--leeroy
--
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[l.m]

"Ben Tasker" wrote:
Leeroy - I think what he meant was that if anyone can actually get
through
to someone to talk to (and get a response) - as opposed to breaching a
real
firewall and leaking staff details, at least that's the way I read it.

Good point. My apologies if that's the case. I might have jumped from
suing them to the time for discussion having ended.

--leeroy