3 ms·

I don't have a full understanding of WebRTC, but AFAIK its a browser-to-browser connection library. How would that work without leaking the ip address? The brow

I don't have a full understanding of WebRTC, but AFAIK its a browser-to-browser connection library. How would that work without leaking the ip address? The browser at least has to know who to connect to?

ilostmykeys 11y ago
1. http://www.techworm.net/2015/07/google-releases-a-chrome-extension-to-fix-the-critical-vpn-security-hole.html http://www.techworm.net/2015/07/google-releases-a-chrome-ext... 2. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webrtc-network-limiter/npeicpdbkakmehahjeeohfdhnlpdklia?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webrtc-network-lim...
richdougherty 11y ago
I don't really know anything about this topic, but the parent comment leads me to believe that you would use a UDP proxy to hide your address. Instead of sending out your address, you'd send out the proxy's address. When the proxy receives data, it would pass it to you. That way the other party doesn't know your address; they only know the proxy address. This is just a guess based on how I assume proxies would work, so I may be wrong.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  Who is going to pay for the proxy's bandwidth? Apple, Google, Mozilla? Good luck. The site owner? Well, the site owner now has your IP!
  - boyaka 11y ago
    People are typically okay with site owners having their IP, because site owners tend to not be malicious. You could only connect with people that you completely trust, but with many applications the users might be complete strangers or merely internet acquaintances. Given the power, there would be malicious users taking advantage of it. This was a big deal with Skype because people weren't aware that adding a contact could reveal their IP to that person, and/or were not aware that revealing their IP could lead to DDOS attacks or other forms of abuse/stalking.
    - k__ 11y ago
      If you want this behavior, you have to use WebSockets. WebRTC is peer-2-peer.
  - richdougherty 11y ago
    Yes, it's a tradeoff.

ilostmykeys 11y ago

1. http://www.techworm.net/2015/07/google-releases-a-chrome-extension-to-fix-the-critical-vpn-security-hole.html http://www.techworm.net/2015/07/google-releases-a-chrome-ext... 2. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webrtc-network-limiter/npeicpdbkakmehahjeeohfdhnlpdklia?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webrtc-network-lim...

richdougherty 11y ago

I don't really know anything about this topic, but the parent comment leads me to believe that you would use a UDP proxy to hide your address. Instead of sending out your address, you'd send out the proxy's address. When the proxy receives data, it would pass it to you. That way the other party doesn't know your address; they only know the proxy address. This is just a guess based on how I assume proxies would work, so I may be wrong.

HappyTypist 11y ago
Who is going to pay for the proxy's bandwidth? Apple, Google, Mozilla? Good luck. The site owner? Well, the site owner now has your IP!
- boyaka 11y ago
  People are typically okay with site owners having their IP, because site owners tend to not be malicious. You could only connect with people that you completely trust, but with many applications the users might be complete strangers or merely internet acquaintances. Given the power, there would be malicious users taking advantage of it. This was a big deal with Skype because people weren't aware that adding a contact could reveal their IP to that person, and/or were not aware that revealing their IP could lead to DDOS attacks or other forms of abuse/stalking.
  - k__ 11y ago
    If you want this behavior, you have to use WebSockets. WebRTC is peer-2-peer.
- richdougherty 11y ago
  Yes, it's a tradeoff.