W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc-logs@w3.org > October 2018

Re: [webrtc-stats] Is exposing a remote peer IP address through RTCIceCandidateStats.address a privacy issue

From: Justin Uberti via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:38:56 +0000
To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-428399093-1539131935-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
It's definitely useful for call debugging, i.e. what was the media path for this call? What quality level were previous calls on this same media path?

prflx doesn't mean that the STUN sender hasn't disclosed its IP. It can happen even when the STUN sender disclosed its IP because its NAT behavior included endpoint-dependent mapping.

e.g.

local addr is 192.162.1.2 (host)
STUN addr is 1.2.3.4:5000 (srflx)
STUN checks to remote peer come from 1.2.3.4:5001
1.2.3.4:5001 is reported as a prflx candidate, despite the fact that 1.2.3.4 has already been communicated in signaling

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by juberti
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-stats/issues/375#issuecomment-428399093 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2018 00:38:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:22:07 UTC