Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
cend.me
cend.me
Hopefully it's not also using TURN servers if STUN fails...
How is this even close to being "no server involvement"? It's misleading, because the server is very much involved here.
> But I suppose that would be basically impossible on today's internet.
P2P is possible on the internet (100% without centralized servers), but it's not possible without STUN/TURN on the web.
Have you looked at the actual payload of the POST/GET/PUT requests? It only contains the WebRTC offers/answers. Actual file transfer is via local WebRTC.
The site also claims that it only work for "devices on the same network", so there's no need for any STUN/TURN because there's no wall to punch.
Getting P2P connections working reliably is an effort in edge case discovery and either fixing it or falling back.
It's like saying you can connect to a domain name like google.com with no DNS involvement, because you only get the address and then the connection is over HTTP.
> So not really "no server involvement".
and capableweb said (3 posts up):
> How is this even close to being "no server involvement"? It's misleading, because the server is very much involved here.
No one said the file was being sent through the server, that's your own reading of it. You are entitled to your opinion but don't tell people off about "no one said this" or "what's being discussed", it's just rude.
> Not even, the application is making GET, POST and PUT requests to send the file to a /link endpoint
Capableweb definitely said the file is being sent to the server. Not sure how much more literally that could be said, in fact. You somehow managed to quote the second line of that comment (some might say "cherry pick") while completely missing the first line where they explicitly said what it was claimed they said. Genuinely not sure if you're being deliberately misleading or have some of the worst reading comprehension I've seen on the internet.
If you and Kiro could just recognize that different people can understand that sentence in different ways, we wouldn't be there, but instead you like to proclaim that "no one is saying anything about" and "what's being disputed is" and other "that other person definitely said"
I can see how I'm expecting too much of you. You have a nice day now, though I'm sure it will be full of people not understanding things exactly as you do.
> uploading happens by doing a POST request to the server, and fetching happens by doing a PUT request, not sure why people keep re-iterating that it's probably WebRTC when it's really not, this is just a very basic, centralized server that does the receiving/sending of the file
This isn't some ambiguous statement that is open to interpretation. They literally said the file is being sent to a /link endpoint. What part of that statement of you struggling to parse?
Bittorrent works just fine here.
Assigning public IPv6 addresses to every device in your home just pushes the "deny" rule to a slightly different part of the network stack. We will still require something similar to STUN to get around firewall rules.
If you can get around the firewall rules with something like STUN then those rules aren't really doing you much good, are they? By all means, put random IoT devices on a separate VLAN and block all incoming connections directed there (without UPnP). And be sure to block all the obvious workarounds like STUN for that VLAN or there's no point in having the firewall. But for PCs, smartphones, and the like it should be possible to connect to their open ports from outside the network using their public IP addresses without any tweaks at the router. These devices are perfectly capable of securing their own listening ports.
And sure, they could add x finegrained error messages, but I doubt there are too many people who have this setup, that this is remotely a priority.
There is something called setting priorities. And most do so by marketshare and not idealistic reasons.
(while I actually had great pain, to still support FF out of said idealistic reasons btw.)
Because without a VPN, I am naturally "leaking" my IP, as this is how the internet works?
But still, if you are deliberately deactivating parts of your browser, I think it is strange to complain, that websites missunderstand you. Especially sites that aim for the masses. Because the error is mainly on your side.
(Firefox, with WebRTC disabled)
R = window.RTCPeerConnection || window.mozRTCPeerConnection || window.webkitRTCPeerConnection || window.msRTCPeerConnection;
U = window.RTCSessionDescription || window.mozRTCSessionDescription || window.webkitRTCSessionDescription || ["window.msRTCSessionDescription"];
R && U || (w.style.display = "none",
I'm betting browsers (or at least FF) make it deliberately hard to tell if the browser is in a "has WebRTC capability but it's disabled" state (to avoid fingerprinting), so I don't really place the blame on the author.
Disabling WebRTC is something that was deliberately done, so that's on you to remember that you turned it off. Sure, the message could be more helpful and say "this website requires WebRTC to function", but a browser with WebRTC turned off is in fact not supported by this service.
Works great on local network (even mixed: windows/macosx/ios)
I suspect this is primarily a UI issue, but the whole product is just a UI wrapper on a WWW protocol, so a mere UI glitch is quite devastating.
Does the sender have to be up for the receiever to receive?
> If you like Instant.io, try Wormhole from the creator of WebTorrent and Instant.io. It's like Instant.io, but adds end-to-end encryption and links that keep working even after you close your browser.
of course security was near nonexistent, but it was home LAN, and convenience trumped all.
Nowadays I have NO idea if I could do a similar setup with Windows 10 without resorting to the cloud
Make the PC see each other in the LAN is just a matter of ticking one box. I typically create a folder somewhere and give r/w access to everyone then I proceed to log in with the credentials of the computer then put whatever I want. After I am finished I delete the folder. I think it uses SMB under the hood.
(What comes to my mind, is that windows removed the option to record the audio playing directly - which means slightly advanced users can still record their songs from spotify and co, but the majority cannot)
maybe running python -m http.server in Termux is more attractive.
Nowadays I use nextcloud, mostly because it allows easier sharing with third parties and comes with calendar etc.
1. create a group with some one on your contact list. 2. Kick the other person out of group 3. now, attach any file you want to the group and access it via whatsapp web.
Pretty simple to setup and use. for larger files, i would use ftp client on Mobile and use it to transfer files
AFAIK, there is no way to do that in the mobile app, so you will need to use those Whatsapp redirectors, and redirect to your own number.
I made this phone number -> Whatsapp redirector that you can try. Zero server interactions, only JS.
"Whatsapp Dialer" in app store.
Or clicking on this link (replace example phone # with your phone number):
wa.me/17861234567
1 is US's country code. 786 is Miami's / Operator code 1234567 is the phone number
- click on the top bar menu to select your device
- select the file
- done
It uploads automatically in the download folder of the other device. It uses the local network speed. Doesn't require additional clicks.
But as soon as I'm on 4G, telegram saved messages is what I use too. In fact, I use it to takes vocal notes, pictures of stuff to remind me later, schedule reminders (yes, it has delayed messages!) and so on. It's my inbox basket for GTD at this point.
(100mbps wifi = 12MBps speeds).
*except the server website runs on and servers your files will go through since you need somehow connect those two devices unless you are on same network
Why would anyone use this service when you can just transfer files by temporarely opening a TCP port and starting a netcat listener that you pipe into the file you want? It's as simple as nc -lvnp 1234 > myfile.txt
The other party then only needs to pipe the file into a netcat socket from their commandline. nc -w 3 IP < file.txt
</hacker news>
Jokes aside I'm intrigued at the "no server involvement". I'm assuming they mean the file isn't transferred through the server but directly (WebRTC?). There is probably still some server involvement to get around the firewalls / NAT. I don't think this will work if you just host your own instance of it.
Why are you assuming so, checking how it works is trivial if you open up the Network inspector. I did so in Chrome, and as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29225472, uploading happens by doing a POST request to the server, and fetching happens by doing a PUT request, not sure why people keep re-iterating that it's probably WebRTC when it's really not, this is just a very basic, centralized server that does the receiving/sending of the file...
And what do you mean "host your own instance"? There is no source code available from the website, so how would you host it exactly?
Or maybe you're seeing different behaviour from everyone else because WebRTC is not behaving right and you're getting the fallback behaviour?
The "with no server involvement" part of the title is definitely wrong, this needs some kind of server to orchestrate the transfer itself. The server doesn't seem to receive the file contents, though.
Could be. I've tried it in both Firefox (94.0.1) and Chrome (93.0.4577.63) on Linux (5.15.2), maybe they fallback based on OS if so? Weird, as other websites have no trouble using WebRTC with either Firefox or Chrome for me.
EDIT: it seems like this service doesn't even support HTTPS...
Gave me a good laugh!
Those are not a pipes though, they're redirections. This common mistake surely means your expertise on this matter is lacking and therefor your opinion is worthless.
</hacker_news>
tar c /data/emulated/0 | nc ...
I can't possibly send all photos one by one manually.