Discord isn’t exactly known for generous file-sharing limits, still, the messaging app offered a 25MB limit to free users. The company has now updated its support page to reflect the upload limit for free users has been lowered to 10MB.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    brother, use a firewall. NAT does nothing for this, a single stateful firewall will do more for device security than a NAT existing solely by itself.

    A nat doesn’t even do anything other than provide some basic level of device anonymity. If you didn’t have a firewall it would still be accessible, you would just need to either be really good at guessing ports, or sniff for traffic that’s relevant lol.

    • Strykker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Except the NAT device will stonewall traffic on every port except the ones I open, for my entire network, and then I can just worry about securing the software listening on those few ports, instead of having to worry about the firewalls on every device I own.

      Tldr default nat behavior is a state full firewall.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        that’s literally what a stateful firewall does.

        It only allows corresponding return traffic to outgoing traffic that a device has internally sent outwards.

        if you disabled that, it wouldn’t do that. But even a NAT without a stateful firewall might end up doing this depending on how it’s configured and your open ports due to how the forwarding is handled. This is how we get around NATing for P2P traffic, though the trick is to just send two NATed users to the others ip and port at the same time to establish a connection that can “isAlive” from there. If you had no firewall you would only need to know the IP and port to do this.

        plus not to mention you can run internal firewalls on each device specifically which would do basically the same thing anyway. But then again i don’t use windows so that’s way easier.

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, thank you for repeating what I just said, and justifying my desire for a nat. I do infact actually know a few things about computer networks and tcp/ip since I spent 7 years writing software to interface with and monitor them.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            the only realistic scenario in which you would use a NAT under IPv6 is if you felt like using IPv4 addresses internally. Outside of that it serves very little purpose.