Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

voidsec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 172 posts

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#151

Post by blattimwind »

Aloha wrote: post #68
blattimwind wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH just from setting up one (1) PBX with about half a dozen devices from only two manufacturers -- I would never take a job anywhere near anything having something todo with SIP, ever.

SIP is one of a few protocols where two completely standard-compliant implementations are commonly unable to interop.

VoIP phones sometimes just don't work with some destination numbers (OWA/jumbled audio/insta-disconnect/no-connection). Workaround: call with mobile phone.

...

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#152

Post by fauigerzigerk »

the8472 wrote: post #139
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>DNS leaks can be prevented by using a generic DNS provider such as 8.8.8.8 You mean leaking to Google doesn't count as leaking? Your namespaces suggestion is interesting, but easy and foolproof?

You can run a DNS resolver in the network namespace that forwards¹ to google DNS through the VPN . ¹ Or run your own recursive resolver

VPNs do exactly that when they are not broken. Ubuntu is broken and dangerously so.

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#153

Post by jerheinze »

mirimir wrote: post #116
MichaelGG wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the fault of the browser and WebRTC. They know about this but deliberately break it. The truth is WebRTC should never activate without user permission. But no, WebRTC added data-channels. They have no good use to be silent and especially not to override SOCKS proxy. In fact, some key people on the WebRTC group, when I pressed them, could not provide a single real use-case for silent data channels. Firefox is…

Yes, this is largely the browser's problem. Because all available uplinks are available. Tor browser doesn't leak, because WebRTC is blocked. But other browsers with WebRTC enabled will leak with a standard Tor setup. However, using Whonix for Tor, even if you install a random browser with WebRTC enabled, there is no WebRTC leak. Because the workstation VM has no Internet access except through Tor. The gateway VM is…

+1 for Whonix (with Qubes OS)

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#154

Post by fauigerzigerk »

rsync wrote: post #147
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>DNS leaks can be prevented by using a generic DNS provider such as 8.8.8.8 You mean leaking to Google doesn't count as leaking? Your namespaces suggestion is interesting, but easy and foolproof?

Your parent said: "DNS leaks can be prevented by using a generic DNS provider such as 8.8.8.8." ... and you replied: "You mean leaking to Google doesn't count as leaking?" But I don't understand where the DNS leaks would be coming from if you are using an actual VPN for your entire network stack - wouldn't that tunnel all traffic (TCP and UDP) to your endpoint ? How are you leaking DNS in that scenario ?

Two things should happen:

1) All network traffic should go through the VPN tunnel.

2) All DNS requests should be sent to the VPN provider's DNS server and not to the one configured in the OS.

If either or both of these two things isn't happening then it's a DNS leak.

If I understood correctly, then mahkoh was saying that (2) doesn't matter if the host DNS is configured to use Google's public DNS server 8.8.8.8. That's what I called "leaking to Google".

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#155

Post by jwilk »

swiley wrote: post #90
lovelearning wrote: post #22

I don't use VPNs. For me, the more alarming information here is that SOCKS and Tor proxies are also leaking IP addresses. If a SOCKS proxy is configured in browser, isn't it the browser's responsibility to ensure all outgoing traffic - including WebRTC - goes via the proxy? Are these browser bugs? Update: Can confirm Firefox Quantum with SOCKS proxy leaks the address. Oh dear! Update 2: I didn't realize this is how W…

This is why when I actually do anything with tor it's always curl -H "" Using something as complex as firefox for anything important is just stupid.

Why -H ""? AFAICT, it doesn't do anything.

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#156

Post by QasimK »

mahkoh wrote: post #66
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Its not "VPN providers" its "VPN provider software" OpenVPN leaks DNS on every default Ubuntu installation I have tried. But I think it's actually Ubuntu NetworkManager's fault. The WebRTC leaks discussed in this article are not prevented by OpenVPN either (last time I checked, which was a while ago). You have to disable WebRTC in the browser.

>You have to disable WebRTC in the browser Incorrect. An easy and foolproof way of using VPNs is with network namespaces. You start the VPN in your init network namespace and then move the created device into a dedicated VPN namespace. OpenVPN has support for this because it allows you to execute a shell script after the VPN device has been created. Then you simply start your browser, torrent client, whatever in this…

I wouldn't say "easy"! I wrote up an article on running a single application in a vpn[1]. It was quite difficult to be honest having never used network namespaces before. Thankfully, someone else wrote a very useful guide which saved me a lot of time.

[1]: http://iamqasimk.com/2018/02/24/single-application-vpn/

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#157

Post by jlgaddis »

joering2 wrote: post #111

I'm suprised to see NordVPN is leaking. I see commercials everywhere all the time and its #1 or #2 on most VPN reviews websites. I was very tempted to switch, especially when they routers' Firmware is available for the newest/coolest routers out there; but kind of got used to ExpressVPN over the years, so went with them and their firmware for NETGEAR Nighthawk R7000 is very easy to use. Glad to see ExpressVPN is not…

> I see commercials everywhere all the time ...

That's because of their marketing budget.

> ... and its #1 or #2 on most VPN reviews websites.

That's because of their affiliate programs.

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#158

Post by whyever »

Crontab wrote: post #97
lovelearning wrote: post #22

I don't use VPNs. For me, the more alarming information here is that SOCKS and Tor proxies are also leaking IP addresses. If a SOCKS proxy is configured in browser, isn't it the browser's responsibility to ensure all outgoing traffic - including WebRTC - goes via the proxy? Are these browser bugs? Update: Can confirm Firefox Quantum with SOCKS proxy leaks the address. Oh dear! Update 2: I didn't realize this is how W…

I am so annoyed with this. It feels like every advance in web browser technology takes away as much as it gives. Some days, it feels like the web was better back in the HTML4 days. Can't wait to see how WebAssembly will be used against us.

> Can't wait to see how WebAssembly will be used against us.

Have you heard of Coinhive [1]? They are using WebAssembly to mine bitcoins in the browser.

[1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/who-and-what-is-coinhive...

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#159

Post by krylon »

userbinator wrote: post #126
progval wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WebRTC IP Leak: Your local IP: 10.41.41.2 . > Your browser supports WebRTC! Your real IP address is visible to every website you visit. > > Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) is enabled by default in Firefox, Opera and Google Chrome, and enables video chat, voice calling and P2P sharing from within your browser. > A neat trick, but it allows any website to instantly see your true IP address. The only way to avoid…

Nope, that's not my "real" IP address Reminds me a bit of this old story: http://sirkan.iit.bme.hu/~kapolnai/fun/bitchecker.html

FWIW, the link did not work for me, but archive.org has a copy. It was hysterical!!! :)

Re: VPN leaks users’ IPs via WebRTC

#160

Post by CamTin »

OrganicMSG wrote: post #91
CamTin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, we essentially do require that they all be profitable or else not exist at all. This is "solved" by just charging you (or your insurance company) tons of money if you actually need to use it. A medical emergency requiring an ER and an ambulance can easily cost as much or more than an ordinary person will earn in their whole lifetime.

> A medical emergency requiring an ER and an ambulance can easily cost as much or more than an ordinary person will earn in their whole lifetime. The majority of hospitals with E.R. in the US are non-profits that receive federal subsidies to help them exist.

But not enough subsidy that they are remotely affordable, hence the outrageous bills foisted upon individuals.
Post reply on HN