invalid first_seen timestamp on bridges
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/metrics-team/2016-December/000247.html
David Fifield wrote: " Some Onionoo bridges have first_seen="1970-01-01 00:00:00", while last_seen and last_restarted are set to reasonable dates. For example,
https://onionoo.torproject.org/details?type=bridge&limit=100&fields=hashed_fingerprint,first_seen,last_seen,last_restarted {"hashed_fingerprint":"29AC664582027DFAF94528F989951D68115252F0","last_seen":"2016-12-14 14:41:03","first_seen":"1970-01-01 00:00:00","last_restarted":"2016-11-15 15:12:39"}, {"hashed_fingerprint":"4E0727172580EE302138D3DD33A04CD23D650F0F","last_seen":"2016-12-10 08:41:03","first_seen":"1970-01-01 00:00:00","last_restarted":"2016-12-09 09:06:38"},
What does this mean? I never saw "1970-01-01 00:00:00" in the other two date fields, only in first_seen. I would expect, based on the documentation, that if a bridge had been seen in only one bridge network status, that first_seen would equal last_seen.
https://onionoo.torproject.org/protocol.html#details
- last_seen string required UTC timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss) when this bridge was last seen in a bridge network status.
- first_seen string required UTC timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss) when this bridge was first seen in a bridge network status.
I looked briefly at the onionoo source code. The only explicit reference to "1970-01-01 00:00:00" I found was in in org.torproject.onionoo.docs.UpdateStatus.setFromDocumentString, when a timestamp fails to parse. https://gitweb.torproject.org/onionoo.git/tree/src/main/java/org/torproject/onionoo/docs/UpdateStatus.java?id=onionoo-3.1-1.0.0#n24
public void setFromDocumentString(String documentString) { try { this.updatedMillis = Long.parseLong(documentString.trim()); } catch (NumberFormatException e) { log.error("Could not parse timestamp '" + documentString + "'. " + "Setting to 1970-01-01 00:00:00."); this.updatedMillis = 0L; } }
I was able to find one of the hashed_fingerprints above in a recent bridge status document (published 2016-12-14 09:41:03). It looks okay to me, so I don't suspect it's a parsing issue.
29AC664582027DFAF94528F989951D68115252F0: r Unnamed KaxmRYICffr5RSj5iZUdaBFSUvA 0PeiGiVwFHDcaLTK4UYpZQXhaYg 2016-12-14 12:57:51 10.107.79.18 53924 0 s Fast HSDir Running Stable V2Dir Valid w Bandwidth=60 p reject 1-65535 "