81–90 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After enabling it I keep seeing my public address here. https://diafygi.github.io/webrtc-ips/ — What gives?
But it wont be able to see your IP once hidden behind VPN or Proxie server.
Here's another White Hat use case for local IP addresses. You can use it to unobtrusively monitor license compliance for a SaaS biz. You charge each user. A user is constantly logging on from multiple browsers during the day (e.g. IE and Chrome). With local IP knowledge you can determine whether or not this is being done from the same machine (still abiding by license terms), or from multiple machines (most likely sh…
This will raise a bunch of false positive, ruining the experience for legitimate users. I think you're better off focusing on increasing revenues by growing your user base instead of alienating existing ones.
A. How often do we see this user using multiple machines on the same day? B. Is access being made from two different machines at the same time (very high indicator of license sharing)
At the end of the day no matter how much data you add to the equation, you are still dealing in probabilities. So as a business you must be careful about when and who you accuse of license violations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it help if two people are sitting right next to each other behind the same NAT?
It's necessary if the NAT device doesn't support hairpinning. Unfortunately, historically many didn't, so users couldn't connect to other users on the same NAT using their public IPs, even with techniques that worked fine for connecting to other identical NAT setups elsewhere.
WebRTC, a protocol proposed by Google to W3C has applications in user tracking and detection of bots. Cui bono.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I visit the NYT, it gets a full IPv6 address, non-NAT. Isn't this just as bad? Should we tell everyone to turn off IPv6 support?
If you want to hide the IP you're connecting from, and you want to use IPv6, then you have to find an IPv6-enabled VPN (or make one yourself with a cheap vps). The major use case for webrtc ip leak blocking is preventing leaking of rfc1918 IPs (or link/site-local IPv6 addresses) and preventing leaking of alternate LAN and alternate public IPs. For example, if you web browse through a VPN, this webrtc functionality wi…
I don't see how WebRTC could do this if you're actually routing 0.0.0.0 to your VPN, which I think is how a lot of people use VPNs when they're the kind you toggle on and off. Are you aware of a way it could get your non-VPN public IP even in those cases?
Just a friendly reminder for anyone using uBlock Origin on Chrome or Firefox that you can now configure it to prevent webRTC from leaking your real IP: http://www.ghacks.net/2015/07/02/you-can-block-webrtc-from-l... You do need to enable this. After reading the article I immediately checked by dashboard and saw that the option was available, but unchecked.
After enabling it I keep seeing my public address here. https://diafygi.github.io/webrtc-ips/ — What gives?
enabling the option in ublock origin, my local IP would not show but my "Public" IP address still showed.
decided to checkout what options are in chrome://flags for webrtc (use to be enable/disable for webrtc but now thats restricted to just android).
found this other option in the flags, chrome://flags/#enable-webrtc-stun-origin
Enable support for WebRTC Stun origin header. Mac, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS, Android When enabled, Stun messages generated by WebRTC will contain the Origin header.
i enabled it, my public IP no longer shows on that site.
doesnt matter if i disable/enable ublock, my public IP never shows on that site with that chrome flag enabled.
any idea what that flag actually does? and repercussions leaving it enabled?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you use it for fraud detection? What does it tell you/what are you looking for?
Financial card fraud; Most of the time someone just hops on a SOCKS4/SOCKS5 proxy, doesn't have a VPN behind that. We can grab the user's IP. Original discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8949953
The only possible reason I can fathom that this would be useful would be for tracking unique users behind a NAT (i.e. corporate or educational) who block all cookies. Seems like a pretty niche edge case in the U.S., but I'd imagine this could be useful in, say, the EU where cookies are opt-in by law?
Tracking , and any other kind of fingerprinting, is opt-in in the EU. The directive does not say "cookie". http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:... "The use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear a…
This seems like a very odd way of phrasing the law. The default user-agent string, for instance, is stored on the terminal equipment of the user, albeit in read-only memory. It can be used to distinguish one user from another. Therefore, could one argue that any site that includes the user agent in their logs would be violating this law?
And what if the user is not behind a NAT? In that case, the user's external IP address is the one their terminal equipment places in the TCP header... which would mean that it is necessarily stored in said terminal equipment. Did the user give up the right to the privacy of the information by connecting to the website in the first place? Must there be a right-to-refuse all the way down?
/s
Only my opinion but there is much one can do without all the .js
I certainly do not need Javascript to fetch some newspaper articles via HTTP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This looks like it's trying to exercise every dark corner of the user's browser in order to ensure that the browser is a real, eyeball-facing browser and not just a URL fetcher, PhantomJS/SlimerJS, or a clickjacking plugin being used to fraudulently click ads. It sounds like it would be quite easy to circumvent just by running a real browser... especially with lightweight VMs.
which it also attempts to enumerate common files such as virtualbox or vmware drivers via and off file://