4 ms·
> Instead we have this baroque construction, which I _still_ have to explicitly disable in my work environment because various bits of supposedly IPV6 software
by dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> Instead we have this baroque construction, which I _still_ have to explicitly disable in my work environment because various bits of supposedly IPV6 software don't play nice together.
Most security-conscious people do the same.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y agoTo the downvoters: I'd be curious to read your counter-arguments. To start the discussion - "NATO cybersecurity bods warn about transition to new protocol": > What's the solution? According to the authors, nothing short of a wholesale review of how network traffic is interpreted. Sysadmins need to look at how their security systems are configured to make sure they pick up any unusual traffic flows made using this technique. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/10/ipv6_security_concerns/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/10/ipv6_security_conce... This is just one example of many IPv6 security threats.
- throwaway2048 8y agoThe fact that network security software dosent support ipv6, so ipv6 is an inherent risk is sort of a vaccuous statement, it also wouldnt support whatever replaced ipv4 either.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y agoThat's just one of the main security issues with IPv6: https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/Get-ready-for-IPv6-Five-security-issues-to-consider https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/Get-ready-for-IPv6... Also, if IPv6 was a simpler protocol it would be easier for the authors of security tools to implement support for it.