×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox and Chrome Can Talk To Each Other

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the playing-nice-with-others dept.

Firefox 121

The Firefox and Chrome teams have announced that their respective browsers can now communicate with each other via WebRTC for the purpose of audio and video communication without needing a third-party plugin. WebRTC is a new set of technologies that brings clear crisp voice, sharp high-definition (HD) video and low-delay communication to the web browser. From the very beginning, this joint WebRTC effort was embraced by the open web community, including engineers from the Chrome and Firefox teams. The common goal was to help developers offer rich, secure communications, integrated directly into their web applications. In order to succeed, a web-based communications platform needs to work across browsers. Thanks to the work and participation of the W3C and IETF communities in developing the platform, Chrome and Firefox can now communicate by using standard technologies such as the Opus and VP8 codecs for audio and video, DTLS-SRTP for encryption, and ICE for networking. To try this yourself, you’ll need desktop Chrome 25 Beta and Firefox Nightly for Desktop. In Firefox, you'll need to go to about:config and set the media.peerconnection.enabled pref to "true." Then head over to the WebRTC demo site and start calling."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

121 comments

So...? (-1)

abuelos84 (1340505) | about a year ago | (#42788369)

So...
Is this a protocol? A built-in feature? A framework for "apps"?
What's the novelty?

Obviously, I didn't RTFA. That's for sissies...

Re:So...? (5, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#42788517)

It is a protocol and API developed at the IETF and W3C for real time communications (RTC) by companies like Google, Mozilla, but also Microsoft.

It's called WebRTC, but it isn't specific to the web. There are also or will be libraries for people who want create desktop or mobile app(lication)s.

You can use it to easily build applications that need some kind of realtime communication like audio- or video-chat.

It uses a peer2peer protocol like VoIP or Skype and encrypted by default.

The peer2peer protocol can also be used for other data and supports NAT-traversal and going through relays.

Re:So...? (1)

convolvatron (176505) | about a year ago | (#42788555)

i tried to read the high level material, but its really not very clear

would it be possible to use this to write a peer-to-peer collaborative application in javascript that just ran
in the browsers of the peers and didn't require a central server for conrdination, say by passing svg?

Re:So...? (1)

Qwavel (733416) | about a year ago | (#42789391)

"It is a protocol and API developed at the IETF and W3C for real time communications (RTC) by companies like Google, Mozilla, but also Microsoft."

Microsoft? Isn't their role to wait until WebRTC starts to catch on and then introduce their own version in a transparent attempt to undermine the standard?

And no, I'm not being facetious - it seems like MS does that with every useful open web technology.

Re:So...? (3, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#42790685)

Microsoft? Isn't their role to wait until WebRTC starts to catch on and then introduce their own version in a transparent attempt to undermine the standard?

They've already done that. CU-RTC-Web is their little spanner in the works of compatibility.

"I see that Microsoft decided to wait until the W3C and IETF [standards groups] were close to done before putting together a proposal that, if accepted, would explode most of the current works and create maximal delay on this work," said Cullen Jennings, a Cisco representative on the W3C's Web Real-Time Communications Working Group.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57494622-93/how-corporate-bickering-hobbled-better-web-audio/ [cnet.com]

Re:So...? (2)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about a year ago | (#42791669)

I recall chatting with some of the Opus developers on IRC about the time this came out. Evidently the story is quite overblown: as I recall this is more a dispute over how "deep" the specification goes (MS [if I'm remembering this correctly] wanted the specifications to specify deeper hooks to the OS or something of the sort) than an outright incompatible difference of opinion.

The context of the conversation at the time was more to do with .opus files in the tag (something Google hasn't even bothered to implement yet [google.com] , annoyingly, though it ought to happen Real Soon Now) and the possibility that it'll happen in IE at some point, rather than WebRTC, but overall I get the impression that the differences of opinion aren't quite as incompatible or maliciously anticompetetive as, say MS's "OOXML" vs. "ODF".

Re:So...? (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#42792869)

(MS [if I'm remembering this correctly] wanted the specifications to specify deeper hooks to the OS or something of the sort) than an outright incompatible difference of opinion.

MS wants to block the standard from specifying a common codec. They intend to retain the opportunity to Balkanise online communication by using proprietary codecs that will not be available to all users (eg, Linux), or which will require licensing fees per user.

I get the impression that the differences of opinion aren't quite as incompatible or maliciously anticompetetive as, say MS's "OOXML" vs. "ODF".

Same leopard, same spots.

Re:So...? (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#42788713)

An excuse for bloat.

I'm going to rip all of this crap out of Firefox and make it just a light, efficient web browser. I shall call it "Phoenix".

Re:So...? (5, Funny)

Merk42 (1906718) | about a year ago | (#42788779)

A web browser that cherry picks which W3C standards to implement? I think you should call it "Internet Explorer".

Re:So...? (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year ago | (#42789253)

I believe that currently they are more compliant than Firefox.

Re:So...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42790145)

Compliant != useful

Re:So...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42792623)

Hurr durr group think.

Re:So...? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42791251)

Not according to HTML5test.com [html5test.com] , they aren't.

Checking caniuse.com [caniuse.com] and filtering to current browser versions shows FF18 tied with IE10 on HTML/CSS for W3C Recommendations and Proposed Recs. at 100%, with FF18 1% ahead on the Candidate Recommendations and 1% behind for Working Drafts. For the other/unofficial categories, FF18 leads IE10 by a wide margin.

Since those last two categories don't really count for much since they're subject to potentially massive changes, the best you could say is IE 10 is -almost- as compliant as the latest stable Firefox release (which is still saying something, considering how long Microsoft has been the Alabama of web standards integration...)

Re:So...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42794619)

I believe that currently they are more compliant than Firefox.

You believe an infinite number of stupid things. So what?

This Is A Big Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788471)

I'll admit, this is a big step.

But, how much do these browsers weigh now?

Re:This Is A Big Step (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#42790479)

Firefox: ~44MB
Chrome: ~96MB
IE: ~20GB and counting

Re:This Is A Big Step (1)

Seb C. (5555) | about a year ago | (#42794295)

IE is too much integrated within windows to have a clear vision of its consumption...

Re:This Is A Big Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42794641)

Unless you can get it to run without the integrated OS (no, Wine doesn't count), those integrated parts need to be included.

Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

dclozier (1002772) | about a year ago | (#42788503)

Now if they can get Safari and Opera on board it'll be easier to drag Microsoft [slashdot.org] in kicking and screaming while they go their own way.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (3, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year ago | (#42788579)

Why do I feel like getting safari on board would be even harder than Microsoft ? Remember, old Steve Jobs' determined fight to not use VP8 - which is the core codec for this ?

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (2)

dclozier (1002772) | about a year ago | (#42788621)

It's a stretch but perhaps now that he's gone some common sense might seep in?

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#42788685)

Isn't VP8 more processor-intensive than H.264? I would think it was pretty reasonable for Apple to be concerned about battery life.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788741)

No; considerably less. it's a less complex format.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#42788893)

That's not what Google seems to say, unless you consider the "High" profile of H.264, which Apple also does not support. Anyway, it's all moot if your phone or tablet doesn't have a VP8 decoder in hardware. Letting ARM do the work will kill your battery.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788923)

What if you have hardware help for the H.264 codec but not for VP8?

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42789283)

What if you have hardware help for the H.264 codec but not for VP8?

If you want to comunicate with someone that doesn't use skype, WEBRTC now gives you the choice. Will it be less efficient than skype or ichat ? Maybe, but who cares ? Once support for this feature is in firefox, chrome, and opera users will be there. And it's much easier to tell someone to use firefox than telling him to open an account with skype or ichat.
Browsers are the common denominator, everybody uses them. Services like facebook, skype or ichat not so.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#42790615)

And now my browser can turn on my camera and mic. Yay.

But I'm sure there will never be any cross site vulnerability that lets a compromised site in another tab listen in on my conference session. That will never happen.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (0)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#42791545)

"And now my browser can turn on my camera and mic. Yay."

As if Flash didn't already fucking do that? What's your malfunction?

"But I'm sure there will never be any cross site vulnerability that lets a compromised site in another tab listen in on my conference session. That will never happen."

It's fully encrypted, you moron. The only vulnerability that will allow what you speak of basically requires someone to be at your computer, or someone fucked up the encryption implementation.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#42791825)

As if Flash didn't already fucking do that? What's your malfunction?

If you find Flash to have an acceptable track record of security and performance, then I'm not the one with a malfunction.

t's fully encrypted, you moron. The only vulnerability that will allow what you speak of basically requires someone to be at your computer, or someone fucked up the encryption implementation.

You probably would have called me a moron if I suggested that a script from one website on one tab could snag my email credentials on another tab, and yet bugs like that have cropped up repeatedly. I see no reason why this will be any different... it certainly won't make browsers less complicated.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year ago | (#42793747)

>You probably would have called me a moron if I suggested that a script from one website on one tab could snag my email credentials on another tab, and yet bugs like that have cropped up repeatedly. I see no reason why this will be any different... it certainly won't make browsers less complicated.

I could see some risk of this in firefox but I don't believe Chrome has ever been vulnerable to it, indeed that's the entire REASON why chrome runs each tab in it's own separate process.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#42794953)

VP8 has considerably less hardware support, making it much much more battery consuming than H264 (the accelerated version that is)

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42789325)

its an inherent fear that someone somewhere might share something with someone else, somewhere else and not pay apple.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42789285)

Why do I feel like getting safari on board would be even harder than Microsoft ?

Because you're an irrational Apple hater who doesn't know what he's talking about. The Chrome implementation is part of WebKit and there's blog entries on the official WebRTC site that talk about running WebRTC-enabled WebKit builds in iOS and Safari.

Apple doesn't rev as fast as Chrome, so it will be some time before it shows up in their browsers, but it's in the pipeline.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about a year ago | (#42794305)

More to the point, VP8 doesn't make any sense here. All modern hardware comes with H.264 hardware decode capabilities, and it has for some time.

For that matter, virtually every piece of new hardware comes with a real-time H.264 hardware encoder too, specifically designed for recording video and real-time teleconferencing.

I like the open ideals of VP8, but just like WebM, this ship has long since sailed. Using VP8 means no one has hardware support for it at a time when the quality-equivalent H.264 codec can be done in hardware at both ends.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788607)

WebRTC is a threat to the iCrap-Monopoly - not gonna happen.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788763)

Now if they can get Safari and Opera on board it'll be easier to drag Microsoft [slashdot.org] in kicking and screaming while they go their own way.

I hope they get Opera on board.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (2)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | about a year ago | (#42790135)

Now if they can get Safari and Opera on board

You mean this Opera, from a year ago?

http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/getusermedia-access-camera-privacy-ui/ [opera.com]

I'm not sure if the TFA demo would work in Opera if it didn't specifically sniff for Firefox and Chrome, but be as it may, incomplete or not, getUserMedia() was part of Opera Stable already a year ago. Someone else with more insight into WebRTC will have to say why Opera doesn't work here.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

chefmonkey (140671) | about a year ago | (#42793233)

The problem is that Opera does implement getUserMedia, but not peerConnection. They can do the part of RTC that accesses cameras and microphones, but not the part that sends it over the network.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | about a year ago | (#42794405)

The problem is that Opera does implement getUserMedia, but not peerConnection. They can do the part of RTC that accesses cameras and microphones, but not the part that sends it over the network.

A-ha! That explains it. Hopefully someone will mod you up.

Still, "getting Opera on board" should be no big deal. They pretty much started the whole thing.

Re:Putting the pressure on Microsoft - nice! (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about a year ago | (#42794059)

I'm sure Opera support will be along shortly, since they're one of the three partners (along with Google and Mozilla) supporting the WebRTC initiative.

From the http://webrtc.org/ [webrtc.org] front page:
"The WebRTC initiative is a project supported by Google, Mozilla and Opera. This page is maintained by the Google Chrome team."

no need of skype (2)

Faisal Rehman (2424374) | about a year ago | (#42788533)

this means there is no need of skype.

Re:no need of skype (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42788649)

Other than finding each other to start the conversation, I agree. The one thing Skype still has going for it is the directory services.

More to the point it will open up the ability to write skype-like apps for many website, forums, etc.

The security and privacy aspect that skype used to provide has been eroded since Microsoft took ownership, and started routing all calls through their own servers, and refusing to answer questions about monitoring. (One half suspects that Microsoft's ownership was government funded).

XMPP (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year ago | (#42789495)

Could any XMPP client implemented in the browser pull this off?
I don't know, but if so, that would cover all of Google's chat network.

Re:XMPP (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42789895)

Some XMPP clients are starting to add video, but for some reason, the world is rushing towards the browser for everything.
I think its because a generation has grown up knowing nothing but web development tools, and have no technical skills outside of that area. It was easy to get into simple web page development, and progress step by step to greater and greater levels of complexity, using additional technologies to server pages in ever more complex ways, asp java, ruby, xml, php, etc.

Don't get me wrong, that's not a knock.
But it does leave us with an entire generation that only knows how to do things under the control of a web server to a web browser. Since the only tool they know is a hammer, they tend to look at every problem as if it were a nail. As a result the stand alone XMPP clients are a dying breed.

Re:no need of skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42790249)

Other than finding each other to start the conversation, I agree.

Well, I know more people who have a Gmail/Google account than a Skype account.

And Gmail chat has been working for a long time now in the browser with a plugin.
Skype is still a bit better in some ways, but once Gmail chat works conveniently, without having to install a plugin, it will become a serious threat.

Re:no need of skype (1)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#42791577)

"but once Gmail chat works conveniently, without having to install a plugin, it will become a serious threat."

That will never happen. Google has the propensity to want to install shit on your computer (google video adapter #1 and #2, anyone?) so it can farm your ass for advertising eyeballs.

Which makes Google completely fucking useless to me, now and forever, except for their e-mail, which really isn't all that great either.

Re:no need of skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42793541)

Huh? Google (along with Mozilla) is the organization making the strongest push for everything to rely on just a web browser. It's way better for their business.

Question: (3, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a year ago | (#42788657)

So will webRTC kill Skype?

(please say yes, please say yes...)

Re:Question: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788747)

Yes, for all non-Microsoft non-Apple users.

Re:Question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42789013)

What? There's nothing here about OS. It's a browser feature, and both of the browsers listed run on Microsoft and Apple platforms.

Re:Question: (2)

unrtst (777550) | about a year ago | (#42791571)

What? There's nothing here about OS. It's a browser feature, and both of the browsers listed run on Microsoft and Apple platforms.

GP was right. This is unlikely to kill Skype for the vast majority of users, which means it won't really kill it for non-MS non-Apple users either.

That's because all the companies that still use Exchange and AD and run Windows damn near everywhere will still be forcing their employees to use things like Lync, Skype, etc. And Apple users will mostly be using iChat and unable to talk to non-Apple users. Safarri may not even pick up this tech, and IE will probably be using MS's twist on it, CU-RTC-Web. So, even if these other browsers work there, many users won't have them. So they're just as likely to use some other application, which has been possible for ages and ages (video chat isn't anything new... not by a long shot).

This is neat stuff, but it's just formalizing a way to do something that's been done in lots of ways for a long time, some of which were also standards.

I'd like to see a Skype killer, but IMAP + IMAP-push + ical + caldav + etc etc hasn't killed Exchange & friends, and they've been free and prevalent for a long long time. If "Skype" dies, it'll probably be by MS's own hand.

Are you KIDDING me? (-1, Flamebait)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | about a year ago | (#42788733)

Web-browsers being able to both open socket connections to arbitrary remote end-points, and be listening / processing data for incoming connections?

Worst idea ever. If anything ends up being responsible for destroying the internet - this is it. It's just going to be a giant mesh of infected browsers constantly doing battle, like the dust-clouds of dead nanites from the Diamond Age.

You fucking web guys. Take WebRTC, Flash, PHP, JSON, Flash, native browser plugins and all the other half-baked non-standard make-it-up-as-you-go-along "technologies" and go fuck yourselves.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42788771)

Its hard to tell if you're kidding or not, but on the off chance you aren't, web browsers have been opening sockets to arbitrary end points since the day they were invented.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (1)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | about a year ago | (#42789143)

Yeah - when the user tells the browser where to go.

Javascript being able to run off and talk to whoever it wants? And that being an expected pattern?.. That's different.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42789451)

Yeah - when the user tells the browser where to go.

Its always worked this way. You may tell the browser where you want it to go, but the web page returns content that fetches other content from other sites. (ads, page parts, images, etc) You don't need java script to see this happen. Step into your browser's control panel and turn off Java Script. You barely notice a difference in page presentation.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (0)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#42791591)

"Step into your browser's control panel and turn off Java Script. You barely notice a difference in page presentation."

Suddenly slashdot, reddit, digg, and fark are all fucked (especially slashdot.) What bullshit are you talking about, again?

Oh, you're a JavaScript shill, judging by your comment history.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42791813)

Funny, I'm posting this with Firefox and Java Script turned off.
Works fine. In fact I dare say its a little bit faster.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#42794129)

It's called XMLHttpRequest and it's been around for a good while. More recently, we got webSockets.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#42794967)

XMLHttpRequest is bound by the same origin policy. It *cannot*call everywhere you want it to, only your domain.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#42794963)

<script>
var e = document.createElement("script");
e.src="http://wherever/whatever";
document.appendChild(e);
</script>

Working fine in IE since 1999, and in every browser ever since - not Netscape 4.x though.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788901)

LOL.

Wait, what did PHP do?

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42792131)

A lot. http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42789005)

Web-browsers being able to both open socket connections to arbitrary remote end-points, and be listening / processing data for incoming connections?

Worst idea ever. If anything ends up being responsible for destroying the internet - this is it. It's just going to be a giant mesh of infected browsers constantly doing battle, like the dust-clouds of dead nanites from the Diamond Age.

You fucking web guys. Take WebRTC, Flash, PHP, JSON, Flash, native browser plugins and all the other half-baked non-standard make-it-up-as-you-go-along "technologies" and go fuck yourselves.

You're a fucking idiot. What do you think your web browser does when it fetches Slashdot? It creates outbound connections

What about when you open up torrent app? Oh wait, it listens for incoming connections. This is how the internet works.

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year ago | (#42789563)

If you don't like it, feel free to continue browsing static HTML pages with your Lynx browser. This is the way the web is moving and it's what most people want. Seriously though, why is JSON in your rant? What could you possibly have against JSON?

Re:Are you KIDDING me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42791563)

Take WebRTC, Flash, PHP, JSON, Flash, native browser ... "technologies" and go fuck yourselves.

Yep, fuck yourself twice with Flash. Everything else just once, but do it twice with flash.

Only part of the post I agreed with...

A browser is for browsing (4, Insightful)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year ago | (#42788839)

Just as a car is for driving. You could try and make a car fly as well, but it will fly only for a few seconds before gravity kicks in.

Same goes for software. Years of experience learned me to prevent this kind of 'additional functionality', also called "function creep". Next to that, I can think up tons of vulnerabilities, such as implanting 'bugs' on pages, analog to a hidden electret mic, or pre recorded spam calls.

Note that I really support this type of innovation, but please, not in browsers.

Re:A browser is for browsing (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42789367)

no, this is re-implenting technologies natively that where previously used with the flash sub-platform.

Instead of shitty, subversive, closed binaries, its just an open standard with two projects writing two compatible codebases.(redundancy means less failure), both of which are open.

this is a solution for horribly implemented technology at current.

Re:A browser is for browsing (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year ago | (#42789721)

You are right about the previous buggy implementations such as Flash, but the point I tried to make is, why incorporate this into a browser. It only calls for more bloat and more vulnerabilities. Of course this stuff is really handy to call a hot lady through a webpage without leaving a trace in your favorite messenger, but not seriously an option I would consider, mostly because I do not like to intermix applications, as stated earlier.

Re:A browser is for browsing (3, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year ago | (#42789625)

The reason this stuff is happening in browsers and the web is because that's where the companies who care about and support inter-operability are at. It's unfortunate that we need the browser as an additional software layer (and a big one at that) for making truly platform independent and accessible software, but it's just the state of things right now.

Re:A browser is for browsing (1)

adolf (21054) | about a year ago | (#42793533)

The reason this stuff is happening in browsers and the web is because that's where the companies who care about and support inter-operability are at.

That's what Netscape thought when they released Communicator, and we all know how well that went.

Re:A browser is for browsing (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#42794435)

The reason this stuff is happening in browsers and the web is because that's where the companies who care about and support inter-operability are at.

Interoperability is only part of it.....the temptation of hooking your customer in a SAAS subscription is huge.

Re:A browser is for browsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42790921)

What do you think about embedded video/audio?

End-to-End Encryption (Like ZRTP)? (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#42788879)

I've been working on a SIP router and using Linphone and Jitsi for testing. I've been working on getting ZRTP (key exchange/validation method for end-to-end encryption using SRTP) working through FreeSWITCH. I haven't gotten the config incantation right yet, but I think I'm close. Seeing this article led me to poke around in WebRTC a bit to see if I should be testing it as well.

I found some info about WebRTC using SDES-SRTP, and maybe that DTLS-SRTP is the new direction, but I haven't figured out how they handle key exchange, or even if they are intended for end-to-end without a trusted MiTM. Does anyone know offhand if WebRTC supports end-to-end? How is key exchange/verification handled with new peers?

Thanks for info or links.

Re:End-to-End Encryption (Like ZRTP)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42789405)

I'd also like to know if the standard is secure against attacks that use variable bit rate info to detect words/phrases [schneier.com] . I believe ZRTP avoids that problem by using a constant bit rate stream but most services don't bother because it uses more bandwidth. Doing VOIP encryption without countermeasures for that attack seems a bit silly.

Re:End-to-End Encryption (Like ZRTP)? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about a year ago | (#42794125)

Seems like all that would be needed was a shifting random minimum bit rate to mask an encrypted VBR stream from speech pattern analysis.

Skype killer in the making? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42788881)

Now we need a reliable way to communicate updated current addresses that is user friendly and can bypass or enhance services like Google Talk in Gmail.

Call it a where's Waldo app, that you send address and configuration over e-mail or cell text for the person at the other end to enter into the same plugin. Forget about having to open up ports and just use 80.

Could all be done with browser plug ins.

HMMM browsers could become the phone, the texting device, and the video communication interface all in one. Don't know if the providers will put up with it as having the easy ability to do all your communication cheaply over wifi might just put a real scare into the telcos.

Re:Skype killer in the making? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | about a year ago | (#42789417)

Until NAT is dead (long live IPv6) this thing is not going to be as big as it could be.

Secondly, with regard to port 80, I recall when RoadRunner (TimeWarner Cable) shut off all inbound traffic to port 80 for its residential network. It started when the Code Red virus was making the rounds. Supposedly it was temporary, but if you called to complain, they'd recommend you upgrade to "business class" which was (and is) a ton more expensive.

A friend says they eventually lifted the block but I have never forgiven them.

All I'm saying is: let's not pin our hopes and dreams on the most managed port in the world.

$0.02USD,
-l

/Seriously doubt they'd use port 80 anyway as your local webserver would be listening on that port.
//You don't have a local webserver on your machine? :)

Re:Skype killer in the making? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year ago | (#42789815)

It is a question of how quickly it catches on. If RoadRunner tried blocking Facebook tomorrow, they would have a riot on their hands. On the other hand, if they had blocked access to Facebook from day one, people complaining would have been called whiners. The same for this. If they were to block it from day one, anyone complaining would be told that they were whining because no one uses it anyway. If it got critical mass, the situation changes drastically. It becomes CEOs, TV personalities, grandmas and lawmakers that are the ones complaining. You don't want to be the company that blocks Oprah from calling Martha Stuart on their platform of choice.

Re:Skype killer in the making? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42794833)

Until NAT is dead (long live IPv6) this thing is not going to be as big as it could be.

Secondly, with regard to port 80,

Have you heard of UDP? (sigh)

Great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42789691)

WebRTC. The one component that fails to compile due to the crap makefiles in 17.x up to 21a. No one seems to address that.

I'm referring to a VC10 compile under Windows 7 with the standard Mozilla cygwin pack.

Re:Great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42793719)

WebRTC. The one component that fails to compile due to the crap makefiles in 17.x up to 21a. No one seems to address that.

That's because you're the only one experiencing this problem.

I'm referring to a VC10 compile under Windows 7 with the standard Mozilla cygwin pack.

And the reason you're the only one experiencing this problem, is that you're using the "standard Mozilla cygwin pack" (whatever that is) while the rest of us are using MSYS.

Jim

Finally (1)

neutrino38 (1037806) | about a year ago | (#42791383)

HTML5 is supposed to be a standard, no? Interoperbility is long overdue. That should have been done in the first place.

Re:Finally (2)

diamondmagic (877411) | about a year ago | (#42792957)

WebRTC is not "HTML5". It's an ECMAScript API, and you can use it in any ECMAScript environment with the API, including any HTML version, and hopefully, in the future, desktop applications.

Re:Finally (1)

neutrino38 (1037806) | about a year ago | (#42794821)

yeah an just an API so ... imagine a socket API that does not allow you to connect to a server because the underlying protocols are not yet compatible. THAT would be useful.

Don't get me wrong: webrtc is a good thing (well would be better if they chose H.264 for interoperating with the rest of the world) but networking and protocols are now getting over 30 years old and its time that when an standard API is proposed, the interop work is done before so application developpers can really thrive doing their business. Not debugging details of DTS-TLS or STUN / ICE obscure stuff.

NAT ~ IPv6 ~ Email Protocols (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42794525)

People in the community are complaining about the basic functionality email protocols. Gallup Polls have indicated that most are in favor of a simple redesign of the email protocols which include limitless file attachment sizes. A seamless transition to the new protocols is also highly favoured.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...