TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Abusing WebRTC to reveal coarse location data in Signal

210 点作者 geeklord大约 5 年前

8 条评论

DrPhish大约 5 年前
The only universal fix I can think of for this class of attacks is to have routers bound latency to a lower limit (eg. 200ms), with fixed latency buckets (eg. 500ms granularity) when it goes beyond that.<p>That is, no traffic would traverse the router in less than 200ms, and every other flow would be fixed at 700ms, 1200ms, 1700ms, etc amounts of latency. Tweaked correctly that would limit location to continent, unless I&#x27;m missing something.<p>It would effectively trade quick responses to&#x2F;from close networks for some extra amount of privacy (in the case that GeoIP has already been taken care of)<p>The latency would have to be controlled on both ingress and egress to account for internal and external threats. I&#x27;ve got a niggling feeling that an attacker that could control latency of enough geographically diverse networks could find the boundary by manipulating responses to get finer detail, but can&#x27;t quite work the problem into a solution...<p>Is there a less horrible or more reliable universal mitigation that I&#x27;m not thinking of?
评论 #23253375 未加载
评论 #23254505 未加载
评论 #23254291 未加载
评论 #23254121 未加载
verdverm大约 5 年前
I recall seeing a paper where they showed how close you can geolocate with various numbers of peers to the target, by using network latency alone
评论 #23251910 未加载
评论 #23251922 未加载
评论 #23251836 未加载
kodablah大约 5 年前
I can see where a FQDN candidate is no biggie in a browser&#x27;s offer&#x2F;answer since DNS lookups occur all the time. But I imagine the simple fix for Signal&#x27;s WebRTC use, since they control both sides of the exchange, is to just disregard non-IP candidates. Or even better, don&#x27;t do anything with the candidates until the call is accepted. Worst case, could just have a geographically centralized signaling server (or shared IP). Granted, since Signal controls both sides, might as well only serve fixed &quot;host&quot; candidates and disallow any offer&#x2F;answer with custom crafted ones.<p>One also wonders, to prevent other forms of leaks, if Signal can make a blanket policy to prevent DNS lookups or in general get tighter control on outbound network.
评论 #23253228 未加载
floatboth大约 5 年前
&gt; if a Signal user wishes to hide their private&#x2F;public IP addresses even from contacts who call, then it has an option “Always Relay Calls” in its privacy options<p>I thought Signal was all about privacy <i>by default</i>? :D<p>Signal fans love to dunk on Telegram for secret chats not being the only kind of chat.. well turns out on Signal, private is not the only kind of call, and your IP address is exposed by default.
评论 #23256914 未加载
评论 #23257279 未加载
评论 #23256922 未加载
评论 #23262944 未加载
upofadown大约 5 年前
&gt;Even Edward Snowden, the well known American Whistleblower, claims “I use Signal every day.”<p>Well, 5 years ago...
评论 #23253361 未加载
评论 #23254208 未加载
dep_b大约 5 年前
WebRTC and signaling can be an interesting attack vector. If rooms are not protected technically from uninvited people to enter you can get all kinds of information but even worse you can sometimes even hijack a call.
sneak大约 5 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;SYq8H" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;SYq8H</a><p>I got a blank page on the original domain, perhaps due to DNS adblocking.
extropy大约 5 年前
You already have the peers IP address for p2p call right? How is this better than that?
评论 #23256813 未加载