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

Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

cend.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#111

Post by spookthesunset »

kelnos wrote: post #8

Seems 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...

Even in the land of IPv6 there would have to be something to punch a hole in the end user's firewall rules. Any good end-user router will default deny incoming IP traffic.

Assigning public IPv6 addresses to every device in your home just pushes the "deny" rule to a slightly different part of the network stack. We will still require something similar to STUN to get around firewall rules.

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#112

Post by dboreham »

the8472 wrote: post #108
kelnos wrote: post #8

Seems 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.

No it doesn't. (you're relying on someone's public server for it to work).

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#113

Post by Kiro »

amelius wrote: post #100
Kiro wrote: post #55

Contrary to some misleading comments in this thread it is in fact using WebRTC. The crux is that WebRTC doesn't show up in the normal Network tab but if you go to chrome://webrtc-internals/ you will see the action.

I'm on Firefox.

It's not visible in the Network pane on Firefox either but you can enter "about:webrtc" in the URL to see the WebRTC inspector.

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#114

Post by Kiro »

remram wrote: post #99
iCarrot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the application is making GET, POST and PUT requests to send the file Have you looked at the actual payload of the POST/GET/PUT requests? It only contains the WebRTC offers/answers. Actual file transfer is via local WebRTC. The site also claims that it only work for "devices on the same network", so there's no need for any STUN/TURN because there's no wall to punch.

If those POST/GET requests are coordinating the transfer and exchanging metadata, "no server involvement" is still wrong. It's like saying you can connect to a domain name like google.com with no DNS involvement, because you only get the address and then the connection is over HTTP.

No-one said anything about the "no server involvement" claim here. What's disputed is capableweb's comment that the app is sending the file itself to the server and not even using WebRTC, which is incorrect. They even say "checking how it works is trivial if you open up the Network inspector" but WebRTC traffic does not show up in there. So much for it being "trivial".

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#115

Post by input_sh »

dboreham wrote: post #112
the8472 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I suppose that would be basically impossible on today's internet. Bittorrent works just fine here.

No it doesn't. (you're relying on someone's public server for it to work).

Yes, that's the point of peer-to-peer communication, you need peers to communicate with.

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#116

Post by SubiculumCode »

opensmtpd wrote: post #23
namibj wrote: post #21

Also consider WebTorrent, easily accessible via https://instant.io/ .

I've also been satisfied with Wormhole[1]. Been using it ever since Firefox Send was discontinued. > If you like Instant.io, try Wormhole from the creator of WebTorrent and Instant.io. It's like Instant.io, but adds end-to-end encryption and links that keep working even after you close your browser. [1] https://wormhole.app

I loved Firefox Send, but part of its appeal was I know Mozilla as an organization.

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#117

Post by def_true_false »

CPLX wrote: post #65
rk06 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Whatsapp for that purpose. 1. create a group with some one on your contact list. 2. Kick the other person out of group 3. now, attach any file you want to the group and access it via whatsapp web. Pretty simple to setup and use. for larger files, i would use ftp client on Mobile and use it to transfer files

Seems to me that this strategy requires blind trust in Mark Zuckerberg.

Telegram self messages are not E2E encrypted at all.

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#118

Post by hutzlibu »

progmetaldev wrote: post #106
_g5q8 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. https://www.expressvpn.com/webrtc-leak-test

I am not sure, if I understand correctly, but it seems it is only an issue, if I am using a VPN?

Because without a VPN, I am naturally "leaking" my IP, as this is how the internet works?

Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement

#119

Post by hutzlibu »

pmontra wrote: post #107
hutzlibu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

It surely is a wrong error message, or rather oversimplified error and solution, that should be improved.

But still, if you are deliberately deactivating parts of your browser, I think it is strange to complain, that websites missunderstand you. Especially sites that aim for the masses. Because the error is mainly on your side.

Post reply on HN