I create a webrtc sample based On this tutorial. this work on my local network fine and I can send and receive signal and videos. but when I connect from internet ti the server and two peer are not in same network video connection does not create.
I am using self sign Certificate and must add them two browsers.
there is no error or exception. my signaling server is a web socket server written in nodejs.
Original Answer
I believe that you require a HTTPS (SSL certificate) if you are using Chrome +47 to be deployed online, but is not required if serving from a local machine on the same network.
According to caniuse; Edge and Firefox may yield non blocking results (but prefix with moz):http://caniuse.com/#feat=stream
The issue isn't necessarily WebRTC but getUserMedia/Stream API isn't provided when the called from a non-secure site (or non-localhost address).
Attached Image:
(https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/10/chrome-47-webrtc)
Update:
Did a bit more digging around, and the following answer is related to the question getUserMedia() in chrome 47 without using https i.e. possible duplicate;
You "can" launch a Chrome browser to accept the insecure origin; however, that's temp. fix, whereas you'd probably want to get a certificate.
chrome.exe --user-data-dir=/test/only/profile/dir --unsafely-treat-insecure-origin-as-secure="http://example.com"
Related
I need informations about security risks and proof of concepts to work with an local client.
In my option, a user will install two components:
The game client
The client launcher
The launcher is running as an background process all the time. The launcher provides an WebSocket server.
The user will open my website to start the game (with game-server lists and other settings). The Website connects to the game launcher to handle all actions (change configuration, start the game executable)..
Problem:
How realize the communication with the website and the game launcher? Okay, Websockets, yes. But browsers forbid to connect to localhost/127.0.0.1 by security reason.
An fake-pointer as DNS or hosts-file to an subdomain like local.game.tld is bad, because SSL-Certificates can be revoked here as bad usage.
Another idea was to provide an NPAPI-Plugin for the browser. But it seems, that the NPAPI is deprecated and useless for the future.
Whats the best practice to communicate between webpages and local installed software?
But browsers forbid to connect to localhost/127.0.0.1 by security reason
This isn't true. Browsers allow you to connect to localhost / 127.0.0.1. I do it all the time on my machine.
The issue is that TLS (wss://localhost, not ws://localhost) requires a certificate and browsers forbid mixed content (you can't have an https website load non-encrypted resources).
fake-pointer as DNS or hosts-file to an subdomain like local.game.tld is bad, because SSL-Certificates can be revoked here as bad usage.
As part of your game installer you could create a hosts file entry with a certificate for mygame.localhost (possibly using a local script) and then ask the player to authorize the installation of the certificate using their password. This way your certificate won't be revoked... but you are right that this his suboptimal.
EDIT: also, please note that the domain name must be at the end, not at the beginning (i.e., game.localhost and not localhost.game).
Whats the best practice to communicate between webpages and local installed software?
Generally speaking, if your game is installed on the local machine, there's no need to encrypt the communication between the local browser and the local machine.
You can easily write your local server to accept only connections from the local machine (or, at worst, if need be, accept connections from the local area network - though this adds security risks).
Your webpage and WebSocket data can be sent "in the clear" (ws:// and http://) between the local server and the browser since they are both on the same machine - this way you don't need a browser. The local server would initiate (as a client) any encrypted connection it needs when communicating with an external service (was:// / https://).
EDIT (from the comments):
There are the only 2 solutions I know of:
Installing a self-signed certificate; or
Using http instead of https and having the server handle outside traffic as if it were a client (so all traffic going outside is encrypted).
I recently "finished" my major WebRTC project-- a peer-to-peer video chat for musicians where you can play music at the same time. I just fixed this annoying error (took me 2 days to solve, too) but now when I go to my server IP address it shows the start chat, everything, except it doesn't ask to allow video/audio, which results in a blank video slot and not being able to see anyone. Is this an issue with Digitalocean?
Also, you can look at the Digitalocean one to see going wrong and the Heroku one to see what it should be doing.
Thanks so much!
it looks like your call to getUserMedia is being blocked by the browser:
Uncaught Error: User media not available
at Object.getUserFullMedia (helpers.js:81)
at getAndSetUserStream (rtc.js:103)
at rtc.js:34
This happens because it requires the use of https when not on a localhost domain. Your heroku app works because it is using https, Digital Ocean doesn't because it's http.
On http://localhost, your browser allows it for ease of development.
In order for it to work on your digital ocean droplet, you'll want to set up a domain name that points to the droplet and set up an SSL certificate for that server.
Have you thought about just using heroku for this seeing as you've got it set up? They provide all of that for you out of the box with custom domains and SSL certificates.
I'm trying to develop a web application in nodejs. I'm using an npm package called "simple-peer" but i don't think this issue is related to that. I was able to use this package and get it working when integrating it with a laravel application using an apache server as the back end. I could access the host machine through it's IP:PORT on the network and connect a separate client to the host successfully with a peer-to-peer connection. However, I'm now trying to develop this specifically in node without an apache back end. I have my express server up and running on port 3000, I can access the index page from a remote client on the same network through IP:3000. But when I try to connect through webrtc, I get a "Connection failed" error. If I connect two different browser instances on the same localhost device, the connection succeeds.
For reference: i'm just using the copy/pasted code from this usage demo. I have the "simplepeer.min.js" included and referenced in the correct directory.
So my main questions are: is there a setting or some webRTC protocol that could be blocking the remote clients from connecting? What would I need to change to meet this requirement? Why would it work in a laravel/webpack app with apache and not with express?
If your remote clients can not get icecandidates, you need TURN server.
When WebRTC Peer behind NAT, firewall or using Cellular Network(like smartphone), P2P Connection will fail.
At that time, for fallback, TURN server will work as a relay server.
I recommend coTURN.
Here is an simple implementation of simple-peer with nodejs backend for multi-user video/audio chat. You can find the client code in /public/js/main.js. Github Project and the Demo.
And just like #JinhoJang said. You do need a turn server to pass the information. Here is a list of public stun/turn servers.
I've build a Web-App that is displayed in an Electron-App with Nativefier. That already works great, but now i need to send requests from the website to the local network to talk with some local devices which are (with it's ip-address) configured in the Web-App.
I had the idea to use the Electron-App as a "proxy" to the local network by using a javascript callback from the Website to the Electron-App (don't know if this is possible, just an idea), which then makes the local request because it's running on a computer in the same network.
The reason for this post is that i need ideas/tips to secure this and prevent allowing to talk to other than the desired Web-App (available under a certain domain) by developing something protective like checking or validating the Server, validating the request by sending it's hash back to the server or other methods.
So my questions are: is it generally a good idea to do something like this or is this a huge security problem and have anyone any tips to secure the communication and only allowing the communication to in the web-app configured devices in the local network?
I'm using node js trying to send my web-page to my network, I successfully call localhost:port in my computer using express as server, the webpage loads fine trigger my webcam which I used to streaming in the webpage, and then im working to make a simple app in my phone to directly access my server, so my questions:
1.How do I able to access my server from different devices in the same wireless-network? by calling ip + port ?192.168.1.104:9001 ? cause i've tried and it didnt work.
2.I've found https with .pem something like that, is that the answer ? is there also any other way ?
3.maybe any advice before i work to make my web-app to devices? using koa? i don't even really know what is that, but i'm happily take any advices.
EDIT: i've read How could others, on a local network, access my NodeJS app while it's running on my machine?
let's say I simply using random router, so i can't configure my router-port, my server in my pc and my phone join in the same network, trying to access the server in my phone
1.How do I able to access my server from different devices in the same wireless-network?
All you need to do is find your server's IP address in this same wireless-network, and find the Node.js application's port. Then access the following URL in other devices:
http://{server_IP}:{port}
However, there are some points need to check:
Need to check firewall and confirm the port is not blocked, server IP is not blocked by test device, and test device IP is not blocked by server.
Need to check whether there is any Proxy setting in server and test device. If there is any, disable the proxy.
A computer may have many IP addresses at the same time, you need to find the correct one in the same wireless-network. For example, If you install a virtual machine software such as VMware and run a virtual system inside, your real computer will get IP address as 192.168.*.* -- this IP address looks like an intranet IP in wireless-network, but it is not, and can never be accessed by test device.
2.I've found https with .pem something like that, is that the answer?
No, HTTPS has nothing to do with this problem. HTTPS just add security (based on HTTP layer), it does not impact any HTTP connectivity. Actually, to minify the problem, it is better to only use HTTP in your scenario.
There is only one very special case that may bring your problem by HTTPS -- the test machine is configured and will block any non-HTTPS connection for security.
3.maybe any advice before i work to make my web-app to devices? using koa?
My suggestion is: As there is an HTTP connectivity issue, the first step is trying to find the root cause of that issue. Thus, it is better to make a simplest HTTP server using native Node.js, no Koa, no Express. In this way, the complexity of server will be reduced, which makes root cause investigation easier.
After the HTTP connectivity issue is fixed, you can pick up Koa or Express or any other mature Node.js web framework to help the web-app work.
4.let's say I simply using random router, so i can't...
Do you mean your server get dynamic IP address by DHCP? As long as the IP is not blocked by test device, it does not matter.