3 ms·

If firewalls are even needed, a recent poll on an IPv6 professional forum ended with 50/50 split between opt-in and opt-out for IPv6 firewalls in routers of con

If firewalls are even needed, a recent poll on an IPv6 professional forum ended with 50/50 split between opt-in and opt-out for IPv6 firewalls in routers of consumer ISPs...

globular-toast 6y ago
That's surprising and quite concerning. Imagine all the insecure IoT devices running ancient software having a direct connection to the Internet... It would be even more concerning if they were shipping routers without any firewall functionality at all. NAT basically requires a firewall. I hope the thinking isn't if you can do away with NAT you can do away with the firewall.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  The thinking of the opt-inners seems to be (roughly) that : -IPv6 is fundamentally much more secure than IPv4 (no scanning, etc.) -opt-out is bad for innovation, especially since the cheap default ISP router firewall software is likely to not even allow opt-out for any other protocols than TCP and UDP. (Heck, these days on IPv4 even anything different than HTTPS can be problematic...) -reliance on router firewalls is bad because they incentivize sloppy device security - the manufacturers should be instead liable when they are at fault for screwing it up (also, how many of these "insecure IoT devices running ancient software" are even able to run IPv6 ?) source : https://lafibre.info/ipv6/ipv6-le-firewall/msg704095/#msg704095 https://lafibre.info/ipv6/ipv6-le-firewall/msg704095/#msg704... (fr) Incidentally, one of the "big 4" French ISPs "Free" didn't even have an IPv6 firewall on its customers routers between 2008 and 2019, and it's probably still opt-in : 4 months ago : https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200812110733AA8WakU https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=202008121107... (fr) So I guess that we're going to see in practice the problems that having no IPv6 firewall causes (most customers not having any idea about what even is a firewall) as it gets more popular... and since Free this summer boasted about reaching 99% IPv6 coverage, and is enabled by default, and can NOT be disabled...
  - deadbunny 6y ago
    > IPv6 is fundamentally much more secure than IPv4 (no scanning, etc.) The same was true for ipv4 until about a decade ago. > opt-out is bad for innovation, especially since the cheap default ISP router firewall software is likely to not even allow opt-out for any other protocols than TCP and UDP. (Heck, these days on IPv4 even anything different than HTTPS can be problematic...) I can't wait for conficker6 to innovate it's way around the ipv6 net. > reliance on router firewalls is bad because they incentivize sloppy device security - the manufacturers should be instead liable when they are at fault for screwing it up (also, how many of these "insecure IoT devices running ancient software" are even able to run IPv6 ?) Sounds like an excellent reason for an opt-out by standard. 99% of the world's internet users wouldn't have a clue how to manage a firewall. Directly connecting all their devices to the internet is an awful idea for 99% of the world. Your 50/50 example is hugely biased, first it's on a Telco discussion forum so that clearly selects for technical users, then it's on ipv6 which is going to further select for technical people. Go canvas 100 random people outside a supermarket if they want to have to manually manage a firewall for every device they connect to their network. If they don't give you a blank stare at that question remind them that includes everything from lightbulbs, washing machines, "smart" speakers, to their computers/phones (likely the only thing they think of as being connected to the internet). If you find more than 1 I'll eat my hat. I don't own a hat.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      > Your 50/50 example is hugely biased, first it's on a Telco discussion forum so that clearly selects for technical users, then it's on ipv6 which is going to further select for technical people. As you can see I'm aware of that, they are also aware of that, and the discussion is not so much about themselves (since they know how to configure a firewall or even to install their own router), but about what your "average grandma" should get.
      - therealx 6y ago
        If only average grandma's were just limited to grandma's. I don't know a single person who isn't a gamer or IT person that can properly use a firewall as they exist now.

If firewalls are even needed, a recent poll on an IPv6 professional forum ended with 50/50 split between opt-in and opt-out for IPv6 firewalls in routers of consumer ISPs...

globular-toast 6y ago

That's surprising and quite concerning. Imagine all the insecure IoT devices running ancient software having a direct connection to the Internet... It would be even more concerning if they were shipping routers without any firewall functionality at all. NAT basically requires a firewall. I hope the thinking isn't if you can do away with NAT you can do away with the firewall.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
The thinking of the opt-inners seems to be (roughly) that : -IPv6 is fundamentally much more secure than IPv4 (no scanning, etc.) -opt-out is bad for innovation, especially since the cheap default ISP router firewall software is likely to not even allow opt-out for any other protocols than TCP and UDP. (Heck, these days on IPv4 even anything different than HTTPS can be problematic...) -reliance on router firewalls is bad because they incentivize sloppy device security - the manufacturers should be instead liable when they are at fault for screwing it up (also, how many of these "insecure IoT devices running ancient software" are even able to run IPv6 ?) source : https://lafibre.info/ipv6/ipv6-le-firewall/msg704095/#msg704095 https://lafibre.info/ipv6/ipv6-le-firewall/msg704095/#msg704... (fr) Incidentally, one of the "big 4" French ISPs "Free" didn't even have an IPv6 firewall on its customers routers between 2008 and 2019, and it's probably still opt-in : 4 months ago : https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200812110733AA8WakU https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=202008121107... (fr) So I guess that we're going to see in practice the problems that having no IPv6 firewall causes (most customers not having any idea about what even is a firewall) as it gets more popular... and since Free this summer boasted about reaching 99% IPv6 coverage, and is enabled by default, and can NOT be disabled...
- deadbunny 6y ago
  > IPv6 is fundamentally much more secure than IPv4 (no scanning, etc.) The same was true for ipv4 until about a decade ago. > opt-out is bad for innovation, especially since the cheap default ISP router firewall software is likely to not even allow opt-out for any other protocols than TCP and UDP. (Heck, these days on IPv4 even anything different than HTTPS can be problematic...) I can't wait for conficker6 to innovate it's way around the ipv6 net. > reliance on router firewalls is bad because they incentivize sloppy device security - the manufacturers should be instead liable when they are at fault for screwing it up (also, how many of these "insecure IoT devices running ancient software" are even able to run IPv6 ?) Sounds like an excellent reason for an opt-out by standard. 99% of the world's internet users wouldn't have a clue how to manage a firewall. Directly connecting all their devices to the internet is an awful idea for 99% of the world. Your 50/50 example is hugely biased, first it's on a Telco discussion forum so that clearly selects for technical users, then it's on ipv6 which is going to further select for technical people. Go canvas 100 random people outside a supermarket if they want to have to manually manage a firewall for every device they connect to their network. If they don't give you a blank stare at that question remind them that includes everything from lightbulbs, washing machines, "smart" speakers, to their computers/phones (likely the only thing they think of as being connected to the internet). If you find more than 1 I'll eat my hat. I don't own a hat.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    > Your 50/50 example is hugely biased, first it's on a Telco discussion forum so that clearly selects for technical users, then it's on ipv6 which is going to further select for technical people. As you can see I'm aware of that, they are also aware of that, and the discussion is not so much about themselves (since they know how to configure a firewall or even to install their own router), but about what your "average grandma" should get.
    - therealx 6y ago
      If only average grandma's were just limited to grandma's. I don't know a single person who isn't a gamer or IT person that can properly use a firewall as they exist now.