101–107 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can consider ditching Apple platforms for good. They don't want to support developers? They can get lost. I think it's the only language they understand.
Yes, but that would be a rather poor business decision for us.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple need to move Safari to the App Store. A Browser only being updated with the OS in 2016 is ridiculous.
When you get 80%+ of your OS updated within 6 months this isn't so much of a problem.
The WebRTC spec (as it currently stands) exposes your local IP address. So I hope Apple thinks about the privacy implications of that. (Right now Tor Browser keeps it click to activate, IIRC)
Why is this a thing? Your local ip address can be easily guessed. Also, secrecy is not security. I think 'exposing addresses' is a red herring, in such a small address space.
I have to agree... the local IP address really shouldn't be considered a secret, it's also needed for LAN negotiation attempts between localized peers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this a thing? Your local ip address can be easily guessed. Also, secrecy is not security. I think 'exposing addresses' is a red herring, in such a small address space.
You mean most people leave their routers at default, and have an IP of 192.168.(0|1).1xx? Shocking... shocking I say. I have to agree... the local IP address really shouldn't be considered a secret, it's also needed for LAN negotiation attempts between localized peers.
webrtc is horrible to build and integrate with a native project, even without the quirks of ios or os x to deal with. i feel sorry for whoever gets the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about the security issue with WebRTC where the browser leaks the IP address Yes, even if the user is behind a VPN, WebRTC will expose their ISP-given public IP. Luckily Firefox allows WebRTC to be disabled. Recently they added a new setting that alleviates that leak for the majority of VPN users, while allowing WebRTC to still be enabled. Would be awesome if Chrome allowed WebRTC to be disabled as well.
Please read https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/_5hL0... The new Chrome behavior should alleviate the need to disable. Basically, the behavior that caused the concern has been changed significantly.
I'm currently integrating the WebRTC interface into a browser-like project by directly calling into their C++ code (when Java is the preferred interface). Most of the process so far has been trial-and-error (especially with hooking up their JNI calls back to Android from C++ land in order to access Android audio device info and state that can't be reached from C++). The code base is quite large and so gaining familia…
> especially with hooking up their JNI calls back to Android from C++ land in order to access Android audio device info and state that can't be reached from C++ Good luck with that part. I have been using C++ for hobby coding between Android and WP, and the "friendliness" of the NDK has made be look for solutions that can target Java and .NET instead. Some of those APIs that one needs JNI wrappers, are actually writt…