3 ms·
Interesting but 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 would probably cover 80% of that use case. This is just security by obscurity. It doesn't add much if you already im
by cassianoleal 6y ago
Interesting but 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 would probably cover 80% of that use case.
This is just security by obscurity. It doesn't add much if you already implement actual security in the form of firewalls, network segregation, etc.
- Xylakant 6y agoI agree that it's certainly not a substitute for a proper security setup, but it definitely makes an attackers life easier - up to the point where it may get interesting to automate this. So as always, it's a tradeoff. Both options may be acceptable (and I've run a setup where I'd have internal names exposed on public DNS for years), but you need to be aware of the tradeoff to make that judgement.