WebRTC Block Extension

[SRWare]

@monstertruckpa

The Extension blocks the LEAK of your IP-Address. THAT is the reason why WebRTC can be problematic.
It does not blocks WebRTC in the "core" of the browser - which is worth nothing.

[JustinKnili]

Hello all, i did a quickly search about but i did not found nothing about.
Its possible to set up now to block a expecify group or extension to not call outside if is not in working time? like weekends...

[BiggieSmalls]

Will no longer install on my SRIron version 67.0.3500.0 (Developer Build) (64-bit). It will only offer to save the file. How do I install?

@monstertruckpa I don't see those options on the Adguard extension that I installed. Those check boxes must only exist in the paid version, right?

Never mind. Switched to WebRTC Network Limiter and Java script blocker extensions. Thanks for that browserleaks.com website @monstertruckpa.

[TsutomuTakakura]

We will soon stop making special WebRTC-Builds and replace it with the functionality of our new extension because we want to make it also available for our Linux and OS X customers and also make it optinal because some poeple want to switch WebRTC on and off depending on their usage.

Download:
https://bit.ly/2GCY8ve (for Win, Linux, OS X)

Just install the extension and WebRTC IP Leaks are stopped. Please get sure to allow it also for Incognito!
You want to use WebRTC again for a while? Simply disable the extension temporarily.

What are WebRTC Leaks?
http://thehackernews.com/2015/02/webrtc ... dress.html



WebRTC-Check:
http://www.ip-secrets.com/webrtc.php

Good offer. I hope many appreciate its need.

[Maxis]

Hi, SRWare! Thanks for a great browser.
Can you please do something with Device-ID in WebRTC? As described there https://browserleaks.com/webrtc#device-ids this can be use to tracking users.

First of all, media device enumeration works only in Chromium-based web browsers since Chrome 30 or later.

Device ID's — it's a unique identifiers of an audio/video devices installed in your system. Even if you have no camera/microphone, Chrome may detect more than one device, such as «Line In», «Aux», «CD Player», etc, depending on the system drivers.

Full list of available media devices you can check in «chrome://settings/content ⇒ Media»

Of course, Google Chrome does not allow foreign websites to see the actual Model ID of your hardware devices, instead it provides self-generated hashes. But at the same time, any website is allowed to take this fingerprints without user confirmation.

How persistent and trackable these Device ID's?

Well, for most users this ID's may remain unchanged for months.

WebRTC Device ID is a HMAC of:

Value of the "media":{"device_id_salt"} located in «Chrome\Data\profile\Preferences». Salt generates randomly at the Chrome's first launch. It's renew every time user doing «Clear browsing data ⇒ Cookies and other site and plug-in data». Also, Incognito Mode does not touch «device_id_salt», but generates its own salt for every session.

Origin, aka «protocol://hostname:port». This dependence is not a problem for user tracking, script can be requested from constant host through iframe, and it will be same origin and same Device ID's on any domains.

Raw Device ID of the physical device installed in your system.

So, WebRTC Device Fingerprints persistent to:

Changing ISP, IP address.
Restarting browser, rebooting system.
Clearing cookies and cache through third-party addons like EditThisCookie or CCleaner.
WebRTC Device Fingerprints not persistent to:

Clearing cookies through «chrome://settings/clearBrowserData».
Using new session of Incognito mode.

[Carav]

My comment comes sadly after the fact, when you likely have ceased building WebRTC builds. Nevertheless, allowing an extension to do the work of hard coding is a privacy risk. Your users come to you for a browser that is private, safe to use and ensures anonymity. Leaving anonymity open or closed by way of an extension is an unacceptable risk. The demand for video conferencing on a browser is fully over-rated given the existence of Skype and other apps and I don't believe your core values for privacy and security in your browser are served by allowing an outside provider do for you what your users expect from you from the start. Meiner Meinung nach.

I was just wondering if you could further explain why that would make the browser less safe? If the extension works well then I do not se a big problem. And not everybody is using the browser for the same reasons some come here to be able to alter the code etc. Moreover I do not think that alternatives to video conferencing apps are overrated (especially due to the current events). All these apps are owned by one company or the other so it would be nice to have these values of safety and anonymity you talked about included in a video conferencing system.
I'm always happy to recieve feedback or to be corrected if necessary so feel free to respond!
Greetings!

[Maxis]

SRWare
Your site http://www.ip-secrets.com/webrtc.php doesn't work correctly. There is no IP address in the box "WebRTC-IPs" in many browsers.
This https://browserleaks.com/webrtc site is working correctly.

[MarkusH]

Download:
https://t1p.de/ea7qy (for Win, Linux, macOS)

This link is no longer valid. Can you provide a working link to the extension or tell the exact name of the extension. There are multiple results, if I search for "WebRTC" in the chrome web store.

Thank you very much.