Re: [rtcweb] Please require user consent for data channels

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2015-07-20 15:26 GMT+02:00 Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>:

> Le 2015-07-20 14:58, Tim Panton a écrit :
> > If I understand correctly we bind to each and every interface
> > that is up and send out packets to all remote candidates down _every_
> interface,
> > ignoring any preferences set by the admin in the local routing table
> which
> > were set to ensure (say) only critical traffic is sent down certain
> interfaces.
>
> I have difficulty understanding what it is that's bugging you. Is it the
> signalling payload (i.e., sending the list of address), or is it the
> connectivity checks that are done on all candidate pairs?
>

Unfortunately we are mixing two probably separate concerns:

1) ICE gathering and possible sensitive IP leak when connecting the
STUN/TURN server (decided by the web app) from all the interfaces (those
that of course have a route to the server).

2) Same issue when the IPs are announced in the SDP and ICE connectivity
checks with the remote peer are performed.

We should focus :)




>
> > Likewise my fantastically expensive BGAN link which is used for
> > emergencies only will suddenly start carrying STUN requests irrespective
> of how I configure my
> > routes ?
>
> Only if it's possible to route the packet to the STUN server over the
> BGAN link. There must be a route.


 Yes, but the point is that one may have enabled a secondary route (a
default route via eth2) but prefer to use another route as default (eth1).
The browser will not respect that because it will try both eth1 and eth2.




-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>