[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] ipfsgateway: Remove default gateway

[Timo Rothenpieler]

On 13.08.2022 18:29, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> I fully support better IPFS support
> what iam a bit "upset" about is that running a IPFS node is presented as
> if that was more private than using a gateway.

That's not what people are suggesting.
The primary upset is about FFmpeg having hardcoded in a public gateway 
run by some company.
That is unprecedented for FFmpeg.
You have to keep in mind that that code will make it into a ton of 
distros, installed applications and who knows what else, for a very long 
time to come.

What if in 5 years that company goes under, and the domain is sold?
Or it just decides to "become evil"? What if it already is? I don't know 
that company, or how they earn their money with running a public service 
like that.
There are so many issues with hardcoding a domain like that into FFmpeg, 
that I'm surprised really anyone is defending it.


> If you use a gateway there are 2 options
> A. the gateway is honest then you have decent privacy
> B. the gateway logs you, in which case you have no privacy
> 
> OTOH if you run a node
> You have no privacy either way

If you run a node, you have put enough effort in, that you at least 
understand what is happening.
People understand torrents, which have the same issue, and manage to use 
them.

> Consider this:
> If i want to know who downloads assetXYZ i can simple create 1000 nodes each
> sharing assetXYZ. (this can in reality be 1 node pretending to be 1000)
> If you now request assetXYZ from IPFS then the node you use will likely
> download it straight from one of my 1000 nodes, i get your IP, yes we
> have a encrypted connection but that goes straight to my attack nodes
> you notice nothing of this, i log your IP and time.
> 
> If you used some public gateway, i would just log the time and IP of that
> public gateway
> 
> If you want really private IPFS with you need TOR or something
> equivalent.
> If someone posts a patch to add native TOR support i surely wont be unhappy
> I also would very welcome more native IPFS support but that alone does not
> fix the privacy / logging issue
> 
> Also i would be VERY happy if iam wrong and running a IPFS node can be made
> 100% secure and private

I don't really understand how that is at all relevant to the issue at hand:
We have hardcoded a companies server into our main codebase. Thus we 
endorse that company and basically say that we trust it.
Which I for one do not. I don't know it at all.
If it turns out that company is acting badly, it will also reflect badly 
on the project. We, as a project, simply cannot do that.

It's easy to say that "a user will just pick the first gateway found on 
google anyway", but we cannot safe users from their own responsibility 
there.
It's our responsibility to be trustworthy. Hardcoding servers like this 
does not instill trust.

Specially if the IPFS project then publishes a big blog post about 
ffmpeg having gained "native" support, which makes the whole effort 
appear even more dubious, since the support that was added is very much 
not native.

> independant of this, i would very much welcome the current gateway code to
> be extended to verify the content so the gateway cannot modify it!
> And this should be enabled for non local gateways by default i think

Seems like a good idea in any case. No idea how ipfs works, but does the 
url not work as hash for the contents it points to?