[globie]

Here's a (very) small sample gathered from a search for "webrtc" on cve.org and picking high-severity CVEs affecting browsers:

* CVE-2015-1260

* CVE-2022-4924

* CVE-2023-7010

* CVE-2023-7024

* CVE-2024-3170

* CVE-2024-4764

* CVE-2024-5493

* CVE-2024-10488

Of course, I agree that it's not relevant to ffmpeg. But seeing "WebRTC" triggers the same part of the brain that looks out for unescaped SQL statements. Good opportunity to point out the difference in this implementation.

[therealpygon]

So you searched “WebRTC”, and then took the extraordinary step of… not actually reading any of them while simultaneous using them as supposed points? Quick question since you seem to know a lot about these CVEs and have spent a fair amount of time understanding them: how many of those were browser implementation issue?

This is like searching CVE for “node” and then claiming Node is terrible because some node packages have vulnerabilities. Low effort and intended to fit evidence to an opinion instead of evaluating evidence. “Linux” has 17,000 results; using your critical lens, all Linux is insecure.

[globie]

When writing this inflammatory post, you seem to have forgot the bigger picture of the thread you are flaming.

We're discussing whether it's right to take a second look from a security standpoint when a software implements WebRTC. In this case, it's nuanced, and the implementation in FFmpeg is very different than the more complete implementations you find in browsers. And when browsers have implemented WebRTC, many vulnerabilities have followed.

So the double-take is justified here, even if only in principle. No one is saying WebRTC is insecure, or FFmpeg, or node, or Linux..........

I did a cursory read of each CVE. Wherever you got the idea I did not, you must have forgot to include it in your post. Just now, I picked one from random. It reports "Multiple WebRTC threads could have claimed a newly connected audio input leading to use-after-free."

Does that exactly qualify as an "implementation bug"? I don't know, and I don't care, because how you taxonomize a CVE has nothing to do with whether it's a vulnerability that was introduced when implementing WebRTC. And it is.

[therealpygon]

I forgot nothing, but you seemed to forget whose comment you were attempting to bolster. I “flamed” the useless injection of CVEs that attempt to legitimize someone’s point about the insecurity of a protocol, when that tiny amount of CVEs for a technology the world uses quite heavily almost unanimously point to poor implementation-specific issues, none of which inform the security or risk of the protocol itself, adding useless data that doesn’t further a conversation on security.

“No one is saying webrtc is insecure”? That is literally what the comment was doing, which you attempted to legitimize by listing browser-specific CVEs.

Someone pointed to a car fire and said gasoline caused the fire, and you posted pictures of car fires. There is a reason a Fire Investigator (like a security researcher would) considers the difference between what started a fire and an accellerant. WebRTC was not the cause of these vulnerabilities like you are trying to imply and like the opinion you attempted to legitimize.

“I don’t care” — clearly, if you couldn’t take the time to understand the difference, I’m not surprised.