-Redacted-
|
|
October 12, 2013, 10:18:53 PM |
|
New attack detection systems have been added now which have stopped the attacker from successfully determining if their attempts are valid usernames or not.
At the rate you're making security fixes, your website probably has better security now than NASA....
|
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 12, 2013, 10:34:10 PM |
|
New attack detection systems have been added now which have stopped the attacker from successfully determining if their attempts are valid usernames or not.
At the rate you're making security fixes, your website probably has better security now than NASA.... Hah. Luckily to date no security fix has been vital, it's mostly about limiting the effectiveness of brute forcing by either eliminating methods to reduce entropy (finding usernames via password reset attempts) or eliminating the ability to use a single machine for more than a dozen or so attempts. Same thing with the recent changes to the Stratum frontend where it's validating legitimate miners over botnets/attackers. It wasn't vital, but it severely impacted the efficiency of the future attacks as well as minimized the actual damage they did.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 12, 2013, 11:25:57 PM |
|
The website speed should see a decent speed boost once your DNS updates. Last night at the start of the server move, an Amazon EC2 small instance was being used with iptables to simply proxy requests to the real server (keep it protected from attack) to get off of Cloudflare ASAP. Now migrating DNS to a dedicated box using a more sophisticated reverse proxy setup to speed up the general navigation. It was never obscenely slow, but there was definitely a minimum ~150ms delay added to each page load due to the EC2 proxy. The new server should reduce that delay by a reasonable margin.
This should not trigger SSL complaints like the previous switch. The new reverse proxy responds with the same hostname and SSL certificate as before. Hopefully by now most/all users are no longer seeing a Cloudflare issued certificate due to the slowness of nameserver updating.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
October 12, 2013, 11:47:58 PM |
|
Website doing funky things atm, not loading correctly - part of the new transition?
|
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 13, 2013, 12:23:55 AM |
|
Website doing funky things atm, not loading correctly - part of the new transition?
Should be fixed now. If the page has virtually no styling to it, clear your cache (or hold CTRL and hit F5 to do a force reload).
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
October 13, 2013, 01:01:07 AM |
|
Website doing funky things atm, not loading correctly - part of the new transition?
Should be fixed now. If the page has virtually no styling to it, clear your cache (or hold CTRL and hit F5 to do a force reload). You got it my man - working
|
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 13, 2013, 01:05:30 AM |
|
Website doing funky things atm, not loading correctly - part of the new transition?
Should be fixed now. If the page has virtually no styling to it, clear your cache (or hold CTRL and hit F5 to do a force reload). You got it my man - working Glad to hear it . The reverse proxy was setup to cache all the static files locally, but it wasn't redirecting the CSS imports properly so outside of the main CSS file nothing was styled. I changed the links slightly so your browser *should* automatically get the corrected version now even if you had the bad version cached.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
bobitza
|
|
October 13, 2013, 01:24:04 AM |
|
I keep getting "Stratum from pool 0 is requesting work update" messages when trying to connect to the pool, instead of shares. I can see I get a first share (probably the bot checking) and then the pool gives me a new URL and then some message that the pool is issuing work for an old block and then the work updates. Any idea about what I'm doing wrong?
|
|
|
|
demonmaestro
|
|
October 13, 2013, 01:25:19 AM |
|
just sounds like a startup procedure to me
Side note: DONT POST THE URL.
|
Feel Like Donating? bc1q0v5nfdejapffewu67gft7zw7zsmnfmmkt3lf02 Buy/Sell BitCoin & LiteCoin Click here! | Looking for a great exchange? CoinBase Has you covered.
|
|
|
eleuthria (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 13, 2013, 05:00:50 PM |
|
There were some reports from users with bfgminer using startup scripts that immediately connect to multiple pools NOT using failover-only getting messages related to the pool giving them old/stale blocks on stratum.btcguild.com . Last night I pushed out an update to the code on that server which hopefully fixes the problem. This error was related to how the server was changed to filter/validate miners to separate botnets/DDoS traffic from legitimate users.
If you were having this problem previously, please let me know if it is still happening. I have not patched the eu-stratum.btcguild.com server with this update since I want to make sure it works first, but I have so far been unable to duplicate the issue myself.
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
bobitza
|
|
October 13, 2013, 05:15:51 PM |
|
If you were having this problem previously, please let me know if it is still happening.
It connected right away now. So whatever you did, it worked. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
mdopro1
|
|
October 13, 2013, 11:44:26 PM |
|
There were some reports from users with bfgminer using startup scripts that immediately connect to multiple pools NOT using failover-only getting messages related to the pool giving them old/stale blocks on stratum.btcguild.com . Last night I pushed out an update to the code on that server which hopefully fixes the problem. This error was related to how the server was changed to filter/validate miners to separate botnets/DDoS traffic from legitimate users.
If you were having this problem previously, please let me know if it is still happening. I have not patched the eu-stratum.btcguild.com server with this update since I want to make sure it works first, but I have so far been unable to duplicate the issue myself.
Can BFGMiner connect to two pools at the same time? I didn't know that.
|
New Bitcoin fund doubling platform has launched! Receive Automated Payment Every 2 Hours Appealing alternative with Sophisticated algorithms. https://Btc-Funds.com
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3586
Merit: 1098
Think for yourself
|
|
October 13, 2013, 11:50:37 PM |
|
Can BFGMiner connect to two pools at the same time? I didn't know that.
CGMiner can so I suppose BFGMiner maintained that capability when it was forked. That is one of their main strengths is to have multiple pools for failover, balancing or one of several other mining strategies.
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
Icon
|
|
October 14, 2013, 12:14:55 AM |
|
Yep --balance --load-balance options, thing is it basically connecting and reconnecting to the servers you add, now you loose failover option when doing load balance or balance options and there is some hashing power you'll loose due to the over head of constant connects and reconnects. about 20% from what i have tested.
|
|
|
|
mdopro1
|
|
October 14, 2013, 12:28:23 AM |
|
Thanks guys, I'll look into that. I've always wanted to mine in two pools but splitting hashing power manually is too much work. 20% is quite high but I'll still look into it and see how it works for a few days.
|
New Bitcoin fund doubling platform has launched! Receive Automated Payment Every 2 Hours Appealing alternative with Sophisticated algorithms. https://Btc-Funds.com
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3586
Merit: 1098
Think for yourself
|
|
October 14, 2013, 12:38:43 AM |
|
20% is quite high but I'll still look into it and see how it works for a few days.
That is way higher than my experience. My problem with load balancing was that the split was very uneven. But now with the new quota method it may be better.
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
mdopro1
|
|
October 14, 2013, 12:43:42 AM |
|
20% is quite high but I'll still look into it and see how it works for a few days.
That is way higher than my experience. My problem with load balancing was that the split was very uneven. But now with the new quota method it may be better. What quota method?
|
New Bitcoin fund doubling platform has launched! Receive Automated Payment Every 2 Hours Appealing alternative with Sophisticated algorithms. https://Btc-Funds.com
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3586
Merit: 1098
Think for yourself
|
|
October 14, 2013, 01:13:30 AM |
|
20% is quite high but I'll still look into it and see how it works for a few days.
That is way higher than my experience. My problem with load balancing was that the split was very uneven. But now with the new quota method it may be better. What quota method? You can set a hash rate quota per pool. Such as set one pool to 30% another to 20% and another to 50%. Something like that. Haven't really looked into it myself yet. It's the the CGMiner readme I'm sure.
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
Icon
|
|
October 14, 2013, 01:17:04 AM |
|
20% is quite high but I'll still look into it and see how it works for a few days.
That is way higher than my experience. My problem with load balancing was that the split was very uneven. But now with the new quota method it may be better. Ah not sure of the % i mine at 16 gh/s and lost 2 gh/s doing load-balance, and the fact the usb miner leds come on and off and stay on for a sec then go back mining. Like they where waiting on something... Also something you can try if you want in bfgminer with no over head is manually set the com ports for each instance of bfgminer to use. Like run 2 instance of bfgminer and set one to mine for btc guild other for eclipse and use the format: -S erupter:\\.\com42 -S erupter:\\.\com44. basically you tell each com port which pool to mine for.. Works really well and 0 overhead just have to run 2 instance of bfgminer and you can even get back your failover pools and its hard set the hash rate 50/50 or ever how many com ports you assign to each pool.
|
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3586
Merit: 1098
Think for yourself
|
|
October 14, 2013, 01:21:59 AM |
|
20% is quite high but I'll still look into it and see how it works for a few days.
That is way higher than my experience. My problem with load balancing was that the split was very uneven. But now with the new quota method it may be better. Ah not sure of the % i mine at 16 gh/s and lost 2 gh/s doing load-balance, and the fact the usb miner leds come on and off and stay on for a sec then go back mining. Like they where waiting on something... I haven't load balanced since my GPU days. It's just too easy to setup multiple instances now with the usb devices now I just have no need to load balance. But when I did it with my GPU's my stales increased, but no where near 20%. Maybe 1 or 2%.
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
|