Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of these just get the public ip address, which the server already has.
Nope. You can go beyond that in a variety of ways. :)
Well there is nothing publicly disclosed as far as I can tell.
The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
121–128 of 128 posts
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#122www world really needs more www "browsers", particularly some more that do not implement javascript. Would it hurt to give users more choice and see what they choose? 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.
I use dillo and netsurf for that. Both are quite fast, dillo is the faster one, netsurf's layout breaks less. Dillo is freaking fast, once you try it you start to wonder where the web went all bloated. Of course its layout engine is quite dated, AFAIK no HTML5 support whatsoever and I think there are many layout bugs too. I use it to load up huge static html pages, they just kill Firefox or Chromium on my netbook. It…
Yay another dillo user!
https://blog.sphere.chronosempire.org.uk/2013/11/26/dillo-a-...
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it necessary ? You could do a broadcast on the LAN if the public IP is the same.
That same-subnet local IPs behind one public IP can reach each other is probably not a safe assumption to make.
You only send a broadcast to attempt to reach the other party. If it does not work, you fallback to the public IP. This is sorta what ICE does already.
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#124www world really needs more www "browsers", particularly some more that do not implement javascript. Would it hurt to give users more choice and see what they choose? 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.
NoScript is your friend.
But "modern", Javascript-enabled web browsers are generally not my friends. I am rather circumspect in when and how I use them.
If I need to use a modern web browser on the open web it is generally because I _need_ Javascript. Bank, etc.
Most of the time I can get what I'm after without using a web browser, and when I need to browse HTML I can do it with browser that has no Javascript engine linked in.
It all depends on what the user is trying to do. And not all users are the same.
For retrieving content I find I do not need a web browser.
For reading HTML I find I do not need a Javascript-enabled browser.
Looking at photos is a different task. When I used to use X11, there were a few good options for viewing large number of photos quickly.
Watching video is a different task. For this I prefer a dedicated application. Interestingly enough, the player I use on the iPad has a built-in FTP server, HTTP server... and a web browser. Quite useful.
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
NoScript is your friend.
But "modern", Javascript-enabled web browsers are generally not my friends. I am rather circumspect in when and how I use them. If I need to use a modern web browser on the open web it is generally because I _need_ Javascript. Bank, etc. Most of the time I can get what I'm after without using a web browser, and when I need to browse HTML I can do it with browser that has no Javascript engine linked in. It all depends…
Then curl / wget are your friends
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
But "modern", Javascript-enabled web browsers are generally not my friends. I am rather circumspect in when and how I use them. If I need to use a modern web browser on the open web it is generally because I _need_ Javascript. Bank, etc. Most of the time I can get what I'm after without using a web browser, and when I need to browse HTML I can do it with browser that has no Javascript engine linked in. It all depends…
Then curl / wget are your friends
Try again. tnftp, tcpclient and nc are my friends. And, increasingly, q's builtin TCP client (alas, closed source).
There was a short time long ago when I used wget. That period did not last very long.
curl is overloaded with "features" I will never use.
My idea of a good TCP client is a small, relatively simple program with few options that compiles quickly and easily.
FreeBSD's fetch utility is another one that comes to mind.
Perhaps counterintuitively, I feel I get more "control" from the simpler TCP clients with fewer options (that I complile myself) than I ever did from the more popular programs with too many options and unneeded libraries linked in by default. But that's just my opinion, nothing more. I would not "recommend" the programs I use to anyone. It is just my personal preference to use them.
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then curl / wget are your friends
Try again. tnftp, tcpclient and nc are my friends. And, increasingly, q's builtin TCP client (alas, closed source). There was a short time long ago when I used wget. That period did not last very long. curl is overloaded with "features" I will never use. My idea of a good TCP client is a small, relatively simple program with few options that compiles quickly and easily. FreeBSD's fetch utility is another one that com…
In reality we are not very different. My toolset of choice would be hget and htmlfmt in plan9 which, when combined, just show the plain text versions of pages, or my own shell scripts [1]
[1] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/contrib/maht/rc/httplib.r...
You would have fitted into the plan9 user community in the early 2000s and could still perhaps enjoy it today.
A small subset of us used the name "the Tim Berners-Lee kicking club", in reference to how one man killed the greatest tool ever created by adding a worse one on the top.
Re: The New York Times uses WebRTC to gather local IP addresses
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what should browsers prompt users with? "Would you like to use WebRTC?" What would that do to improve security for users?
I'm sure someone could do better than this but here is a first try at a suitably informative prompt: $site_name wants to use WebRTC. WebRTC allows voice calling, video chat, and P2P file sharing, but can also be a privacy risk. We recommend allowing WebRTC only on sites that you expect to use such features on. [Link to learn more] Allow WebRTC for $site_name? Something like Flash's audio/video access prompt would als…
Security dialogs like this don't work. No one reads them and in this case it isn't even asking users to make a decision they can understand. It's hard enough to have the right UI when a user is on a site with a broken SSL cert which is really straightforward.