Today in our newest take on “older technology is better”: why NAT rules!

  • Domi@lemmy.secnd.me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Anything connected to an untrusted network should have a firewall, doesn’t matter if it’s IPv4 or IPv6.

    There’s functionally no difference between NAT on IPv4 or directly allowing ports on IPv6, they both are deny by default and require explicit forwarding. Subnetting is also still a thing on IPv6.

    If anything, IPv6 is more secure because it’s impossible to do a full network scan. My ISP assigned 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 addresses just to me. Good luck finding the used ones.

    With IPv4 if you spin up a new service on a common port it usually gets detected within 24h nowadays.

    • Forbo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I wouldn’t rely on the size of the address space to provide security. It’s possible to find hosts through methods other than brute force scanning. I remember seeing a talk from a conference (CCC? DEF CON? I can’t remember) where they were able to find hosts in government IPv6 address space (might have been DOD?) through stuff like certificate transparency logs and other DNS side channels.

      Man, I need to go find that talk now…

      Edit: I don’t think this is the one I saw previously but is in a similar vein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AayifEqLbhI