Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WebRTC circumvention #588

Closed
ameshkov opened this issue Mar 14, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

WebRTC circumvention #588

ameshkov opened this issue Mar 14, 2017 · 7 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@ameshkov
Copy link
Member

ameshkov commented Mar 14, 2017

We do take care of it in the standalone programs with $network rules.

Browser extensions cannot do it, so we should figure out another way. For instance, we could override RTCPeerConnection objects, just like what we do for WebSocket.

@BooBerry
Copy link

BooBerry commented Apr 8, 2017

How does uBlock Origin pull it off?

@ameshkov
Copy link
Member Author

ameshkov commented Apr 8, 2017

It does not. uBO (and ABP will also do it soon) used the approach from the comment below. Not the best thing to do as it might break some websites functionality, the desktop programs $network approach is much "cleaner", but I guess there's nothing better we can do in the browser extensions.

@ameshkov
Copy link
Member Author

ameshkov commented Apr 8, 2017

It seems that the only way is to break WebRTC for the chosen website, and if they are trying to circumvent it with the "frames" approach, block it by using Content-Security-Policy.

The same as what we did with WebSocket issue some time ago.

@BooBerry
Copy link

BooBerry commented Apr 9, 2017

It does not

I was going to say, it does too (as an advanced/privacy option)!

Killing WebRTC would be great, especially for those using VPNs (e.g. like I do in a Windows 10 VM and on Arch Linux with the Adguard browser extensions).

@ameshkov
Copy link
Member Author

ameshkov commented Apr 10, 2017

I was going to say, it does too (as an advanced/privacy option)!

Nah, that's tweaking some chrome://flags, it is not the same topic as we discuss here.

Killing WebRTC would be great, especially for those using VPNs (e.g. like I do in a Windows 10 VM and on Arch Linux with the Adguard browser extensions).

Frankly, I am more concerned about the ad reinjection now, there're a lot of websites exploiting webrtc in order to load ads metadata.

@ameshkov
Copy link
Member Author

ameshkov commented Apr 17, 2017

We've just had an interesting discussion about this case with uBO and ABP devs.

@atropnikov please take a look:
gorhill/uBlock#1930 (comment)

It makes sense to implement the proposed way for disabling wrapping right away. Whichever common approach is agreed, we'll be able to reuse the implementation:

@@*$websocket,domain=example.org -- to disable WebSocket wrapper
@@*$webrtc,domain=example.org -- to disable the RTC wrapper

Also, we should come up with something in the desktop programs case. Wrapping RTC does not make much sense there, but we could at least transform $webrtc rules into the $network rules automatically.

@ameshkov
Copy link
Member Author

A bit more information about it.

Test website:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Chromium bug:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=707683

Discussion about CSP:
w3c/webappsec-csp#92

atropnikov added a commit that referenced this issue May 2, 2017
atropnikov added a commit that referenced this issue May 22, 2017
adguard pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2020
…AG-1192 to master

* commit 'be1e461dffff6a9498828a561639db40675f1bea':
  update scriptlets to v1.1.5
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants