6 ms·

WebRTC file sharing broker using Elixir Phoenix

110 points by zabi_rauf 11y ago

astazangasta 11y ago
Could you deploy an automatic mirror like this, so you can turn your clients into a temporary CDN while they have your page loaded?
- zabi_rauf 11y ago
  Yep you can. There was this http://peercdn.com/ http://peercdn.com/ that did that and I remember a post on HN where it served the page from other clients but used web sockets instead.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >This page exists only if someone is looking at it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9531265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9531265
- userbinator 11y ago
  I think it's not really advisable to do that, for privacy reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9112717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9112717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893561 Also your CDN'ing clients could serve different content, giving some of your visitors a random surprise...
  - VMG 11y ago
    you can authenticate the content to prevent that
  - SXX 11y ago
    You can easily avoid "surprise" by hashing content, but malicious clients still will be able to delay content load.
whadar 11y ago
Sounds a lot like https://sharefest.me/ https://sharefest.me/ :)
- mtgx 11y ago
  Sharefest has been in Alpha for years. Why is that still the case? Is it not under development anymore?
  - return0 11y ago
    All webRTC apps are like that. I suppose it's because the standard is considered unstable?
finnn 11y ago
They says "secure" but it's trusting the website to not deliver malicious JS. Also trusting the numerous third party domains that javascript is included from (and if you block them the entire thing breaks).
- mike-cardwell 11y ago
  Yeah. It's "secure" as long as none of Filecha, Cloudfare, Google, Facebook, jQuery or Akamai get hacked, compromised or coerced. There's no reason he can't host all of these javascript resources on the same domain, substantially reducing the attack surface area. I know people like to use CDNs and third party hosted analytics software, but can we at least come to the compromise that if you're going to say your app is "secure" or "private", that you at least attempt to host what you can on your own domain... [edit] I'm probably being unfair. He makes the code available so you can host it yourself. I'm sure most people who install it will leave the CDNs in place though.
  - finnn 11y ago
    You're not being unfair at all, IMO. The instance he hosts says secure, yet it includes lots of 3rd party resources, and of course you're still trusting his server every time you run it.
    - Abundnce10 11y ago
      > you're still trusting his server every time you run it. Is there any way to initiate transfers between two browsers over WebRTC without the use of a server?
      - explorigin 11y ago
        Yes, but that's not the point here. The point is getting the code that knows what to do with the WebRTC connection. Since you asked: https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc/ https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc/
  - 11y ago
yefim 11y ago
Reminds me of http://file.pizza/ http://file.pizza/ Seems like P2P apps are the new Hello World programs of WebRTC applications.
- mmcclure 11y ago
  P2P apps are certainly the go to Hello World application for WebRTC, but that makes sense considering that it's a P2P API. Not trying to be a troll, I just see these comments ("X is the new Hello World!" where X is anything from messaging to algorithmic trading) all the time now. At least this use case makes sense for the tools, I suppose.
- ghayes 11y ago
  Hey look, I made one too https://fuego.link https://fuego.link
- return0 11y ago
  Isn't that the whole reason webRTC was invented?

110 points by zabi_rauf 11y ago

Could you deploy an automatic mirror like this, so you can turn your clients into a temporary CDN while they have your page loaded?

zabi_rauf 11y ago
Yep you can. There was this http://peercdn.com/ http://peercdn.com/ that did that and I remember a post on HN where it served the page from other clients but used web sockets instead.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >This page exists only if someone is looking at it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9531265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9531265
userbinator 11y ago
I think it's not really advisable to do that, for privacy reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9112717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9112717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893561 Also your CDN'ing clients could serve different content, giving some of your visitors a random surprise...
- VMG 11y ago
  you can authenticate the content to prevent that
- SXX 11y ago
  You can easily avoid "surprise" by hashing content, but malicious clients still will be able to delay content load.

whadar 11y ago

Sounds a lot like https://sharefest.me/ https://sharefest.me/ :)

mtgx 11y ago
Sharefest has been in Alpha for years. Why is that still the case? Is it not under development anymore?
- return0 11y ago
  All webRTC apps are like that. I suppose it's because the standard is considered unstable?

finnn 11y ago

They says "secure" but it's trusting the website to not deliver malicious JS. Also trusting the numerous third party domains that javascript is included from (and if you block them the entire thing breaks).

mike-cardwell 11y ago
Yeah. It's "secure" as long as none of Filecha, Cloudfare, Google, Facebook, jQuery or Akamai get hacked, compromised or coerced. There's no reason he can't host all of these javascript resources on the same domain, substantially reducing the attack surface area. I know people like to use CDNs and third party hosted analytics software, but can we at least come to the compromise that if you're going to say your app is "secure" or "private", that you at least attempt to host what you can on your own domain... [edit] I'm probably being unfair. He makes the code available so you can host it yourself. I'm sure most people who install it will leave the CDNs in place though.
- finnn 11y ago
  You're not being unfair at all, IMO. The instance he hosts says secure, yet it includes lots of 3rd party resources, and of course you're still trusting his server every time you run it.
  - Abundnce10 11y ago
    > you're still trusting his server every time you run it. Is there any way to initiate transfers between two browsers over WebRTC without the use of a server?
    - explorigin 11y ago
      Yes, but that's not the point here. The point is getting the code that knows what to do with the WebRTC connection. Since you asked: https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc/ https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc/
- 11y ago

yefim 11y ago

Reminds me of http://file.pizza/ http://file.pizza/ Seems like P2P apps are the new Hello World programs of WebRTC applications.

mmcclure 11y ago
P2P apps are certainly the go to Hello World application for WebRTC, but that makes sense considering that it's a P2P API. Not trying to be a troll, I just see these comments ("X is the new Hello World!" where X is anything from messaging to algorithmic trading) all the time now. At least this use case makes sense for the tools, I suppose.
ghayes 11y ago
Hey look, I made one too https://fuego.link https://fuego.link
return0 11y ago
Isn't that the whole reason webRTC was invented?