“We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
bugzilla.mozilla.org
“We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
1–10 of 159 posts
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#2The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course.
Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#3The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course. Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
It makes it somewhat easier to XSS into your router.
(P2P encrypted video? Great. P2P systems in the browser driven by Javascript from any web page or ad network? Less great idea there.)
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#4The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course. Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
Knowing the local area IP lets advertising companies and other "less liked" parties distinguish the devices behind your public IP, without having to use e.g. cookies. At the very least, it's another data source for helping with browser fingerprinting.
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#5Why can't they just disable WebRTC by default and ask the user for permission like they do with location and so on, without revealing the IP before the user accepts the connection? Also, maybe the user could easily whitelist some connections/WebRTC IDs?
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#6The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course. Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
Real VPN addresses are also leaked.
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#7The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course. Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
Fingerprinting and more evil deeds.
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#8The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course. Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
Exposing the LAN address is less of a concern than exposing the real IP address of people using a VPN or proxy for anonymity.
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#9I don't understand why a peer-to-peer network connection is different from Ajax. Browsers don't require user approval for 3rd-party XMLHttpRequest connections. WebSockets are even more permissive. Why is WebRTC being singled out here?
If I were a conspiracy-minded person (I'm not), I'd have to wonder if this was some kind of corporate-driven attempt to suppress peer-to-peer networks. In fact, I do think this is being done in good faith (even though I strongly disagree), but other users will not be so understanding.
Edit: s/advertiser-driven/corporate-driven I think there are a lot of big companies, particularly social media, that have a huge vested interest in suppressing web-based peer-to-peer networks. Not claiming that's what's happening here, but the threat posed by WebRTC to those companies is very real. At present, a peer-to-peer Twitter would not be impossible to pull off technically with WebRTC, a DHT, and a modest number of STUN servers. The hard part is convincing users it's in their best interest to switch, but if that could be accomplished...
Re: “We are considering adding an extension to restrict the use of WebRTC”
#10The external IP is leaked, too! Clearly this peer to peer encrypted video protocol needs to be restricted, for the good of privacy and security, of course. Sarcasm aside, what good can 192.168.1.4 possibly be to anyone?
It makes it somewhat easier to XSS into your router. (P2P encrypted video? Great. P2P systems in the browser driven by Javascript from any web page or ad network? Less great idea there.)
Can you expand on this, please? How does it make it easier to XSS?