Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment would be more useful if you said what browser you were on when you received that error.
Lynx but of course. (Firefox, with WebRTC disabled)
Well given that this uses WebRTC, not surprising
Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
101–110 of 134 posts
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would stand out more if you disabled webRTC. Since webRTC is disabled by only a subset of certain users, this makes them more prone to fingerprinting. Going with the setup that the average joe has would be better for blending in.
Not sure if you'd stand out more. Disabling WebRTC gives the one who is trying to fingerprint two values to one variable: "WebRTC enabled? True || False" while having WebRTC enabled makes the fingerprinter able to get your IP, and it's a lot more detailed than "True || False".
How does WebRTC reveal my IP address in a way that regular browsing does not? Can you point me to a site to see what is being leaked?
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#103> Your browser is not supported, consider downloading Chrome.
This comment would be more useful if you said what browser you were on when you received that error.
You will get this status message if
R = window.RTCPeerConnection || window.mozRTCPeerConnection || window.webkitRTCPeerConnection || window.msRTCPeerConnection;
U = window.RTCSessionDescription || window.mozRTCSessionDescription || window.webkitRTCSessionDescription || ["window.msRTCSessionDescription"];
R && U || (w.style.display = "none",
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do the same, and I think it's sad that this is the best we can do in 2021 :)
It's even more worse in the mobile world. I would share a lot of pictures after two weeks holiday with somebody who has an Iphone. I have an Android phone. There is not way to transfer pictures direct from Android to Iphone (holiday location != flat rate). WTF 2021.
Open the picture on the screen and let iphone scan it.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do the same, and I think it's sad that this is the best we can do in 2021 :)
Yes, it is really sad. I suspect it has to do with anti piracy, that there is no universal simple working solution. (What comes to my mind, is that windows removed the option to record the audio playing directly - which means slightly advanced users can still record their songs from spotify and co, but the majority cannot)
Also people have nothing to share: they only consume.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you'd stand out more. Disabling WebRTC gives the one who is trying to fingerprint two values to one variable: "WebRTC enabled? True || False" while having WebRTC enabled makes the fingerprinter able to get your IP, and it's a lot more detailed than "True || False".
How does WebRTC reveal my IP address in a way that regular browsing does not? Can you point me to a site to see what is being leaked?
Here is a link from ExpressVPN that displays whether your local IP address is being leaked.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's it. I got the error, enabled WebRTC and it worked. A better error message would be "You need a browser with WebRTC enabled to use this service." Chances are that if the feature check for WebRTC fails the user intentionally disabled it and knows how to enable it again.
If a user knows how to disable webrtc, he or she should also know that this is the technology needed for direct data transmission, so should not wonder why nothing works. And sure, they could add x finegrained error messages, but I doubt there are too many people who have this setup, that this is remotely a priority.
I agree with your first sentence but there are many other possible reasons. When I read the very explicit message "Your browser is not supported, consider downloading Chrome" I assume that this service works only with Chrome and not with Firefox, at least not on Android. Then I come to the comments in HN to complain about that and read that it works with Firefox if WebRTC is enabled, and I remember I disable it. I insist that it's the wrong error message because it hints to the wrong cause. I guess it's possible to disable WebRTC in Chrome too maybe with this https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webrtc-control/fjk...
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#108Seems to be using WebRTC, so presumably it's using STUN servers to do the NAT hole-punching. So not really "no server involvement". But I suppose that would be basically impossible on today's internet. Hopefully it's not also using TURN servers if STUN fails...
> But I suppose that would be basically impossible on today's internet.
Bittorrent works just fine here.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#109I'm seeing less than 4MBps transfer speeds. I would expect them to be faster? (100mbps wifi = 12MBps speeds).
100 milli bit per second is not 12 mega byte per second.