4 ms·
Which is not always feasible. Some companies enforce a no-WebRTC policy, so that installing the app winds up being the only possible solution.
by soldeace 5y ago
Which is not always feasible. Some companies enforce a no-WebRTC policy, so that installing the app winds up being the only possible solution.
- rectang 5y agoCertainly true, but amusing. Presumably the primary rationale for a no-WebRTC policy is to avoid WebRTC leaks? In which case installing Zoom is a case of preferring "the devil you know over the devil you don't know".
- gruez 5y ago> Presumably the primary rationale for a no-WebRTC policy is to avoid WebRTC leaks? I doubt corporate IT departments even care about "WebRTC leaks" (ie. your LAN IP getting leaked). Knowing that your computer is at 192.168.1.123 doesn't help attackers much. What's far more likely is that their networks only allow TCP connections, because that's all their firewalls/middleboxes/proxies support.
- zzyzxd 5y ago> Knowing that your computer is at 192.168.1.123 doesn't help attackers much One can reconstruct your subnet scheme with a handful internal IP addresses, allowing them to locate potential targets faster once they get into your network, making attacks more efficient ("oh, so these guys have some vulnerable clients in this /16, it's probably dev, and I see there's another /24, which looks like prod").
- dmurray 5y agoWhat's amusing about that? Preferring a whitelisted set of programs rather than allowing users to run code from any source is precisely how most security policies work.
- rectang 5y agoIncluding Zoom in that whitelist is amusing because it has such a miserable reputation for security.