4 ms·
You can't avoid that if you want to punch through NAT like all of us have to do. Or can you?
by Stratoscope 6y ago
You can't avoid that if you want to punch through NAT like all of us have to do.
Or can you?
- travbrack 6y agoDon't need NAT with IPv6
- rambojazz 6y agoBut it's still used nonetheless (even if less than with IPv4).
- canofbars 6y agoI have 2 routers and one by default blocks incoming connections on ipv6 and the other one give you the choice between drop and reject for incoming connections.
- can16358p 6y agoMore than half of the world still can't use IPv6 (including my whole country) due to ISPs not implementing it, so relying on that is not a good choice for now.
- forgot_again_2 6y agohuh, interesting. I’m sure there’s a use to this extra layer of “obscurity” after the sibling comment.
- kelnos 6y agoIt's not even that. Well, it is, but it's two separate things: you need a publicly-addressable server to host this code, for all the peers to connect to in order to discover each other and exchange session information. You could also host this locally and use something like ngrok to provide the publicly-addressable endpoint. The NAT hole punching is done by the STUN servers listed in script.js. They appear to be public third-party STUN servers, so that could be a vector for a malicious actor. There are also third-party TURN servers listed, which will relay media in the case that NAT traversal fails. That should be ok too, but could also be another attack vector.
- 0x0 6y agoAnd it seems to contain hardcoded usernames and password for those STUN/TURN servers too...