If you install on your server, edit the file

and comment these lines:
// The STUN servers that ..
stunServers: [
{urls:'stun:' },...],


Also, it is *not true* that is "fully encrypted" as stated on Instead:

" does not provide a way of conducting multi-party
conversations with end-to-end ."

Thanks @galaxis and @infosechandbook

@FuckOffGoogleZurich @galaxis @infosechandbook
Do you know how it is with #jitsi desktop? I've heard it has #zrtp encryption. Is that then also limited to 2 person conversation?

@FuckOffGoogleZurich @galaxis @infosechandbook We could submit a patch to the project to use a different (public) stun server by default.

@hirojin @FuckOffGoogleZurich The sad thing is that STUN enables end-to-end encrypted WebRTC connections between a pair of peers, so it is nice to have for that use case (it isn't used in a conference with more than two participants). I'm not certain if configuring different public STUN endpoints would be useful, unless they don't collect metadata.

It would probably be more useful to extend the Jitsi quicksetup automation to include config for a local STUN server.


@FuckOffGoogleZurich @galaxis @infosechandbook this is pretty disgusting, that this has gone unnoticed, thank you

@AbbieNormal because it don't work when people try it. it will hopefully some day :)


it mostly works

I used it in a video call with a friend of mine

It doesn't ring, ok

People are so impatient 😕

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!