4 ms·

This is why we have firewalls. My pfSense router e.g. blocks external access by virtue of it being a firewall with sensible defaults. All routers w/ firewalls

This is why we have firewalls. My pfSense router e.g. blocks external access by virtue of it being a firewall with sensible defaults. All routers w/ firewalls will/should have them.

pm90 5y ago
Firewalls are fine but having the ability to make machines unroutable is even more powerful, no? While I get that firewalls are probably safe like 99.99% of the time… I’ve gotta say, I just don’t trust software to not have vulns of some sort that someone important already knows how to break. So eg for a corporate network I would be hesitant to do this, for my personal network not so much (unlikely that a 3 letter agency gives a shit about what I do). Additionally. Firewall changes can sometimes fail for whatever reasons so you might have accidentally exposed a node publicly for some time. Making those nodes not reachable from the internet seems prudent. It’s like your office building has a public address but your office assignments don’t need to be public.
- mrkurt 5y ago
  Anything smaller than a IPv6 /48 is effectively unroutable. Your ISP has to route smaller blocks, like /64s, privately (because only /48s hit public bgp). And then you have to route the /64 they assign you privately once again.
- zekica 5y ago
  No. There is no difference between the two from a security point.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  >Firewalls are fine but having the ability to make machines unroutable is even more powerful, no? For the whole world there is absolutely no difference betwen routable address, non-routable address or even an absense of the machine... behind a firewall with drop all on a public interface.
  - 300bps 5y ago
    Your statement doesn’t address the point you are responding to so it makes me think you completely missed the point you are replying to. You are correct in theory. What you don’t seem to be taking into consideration are firewall vulnerabilities or other unknown things that could happen that make it different from a practical standpoint. I started an ISP from the ground in 1996. I’ve seen a lot of weird stuff. You seem to just hand waive it away like firewalls are this perfect bastion of security. Maybe you have more experience than I do?
    - blibble 5y ago
      where do you think the NAT and associated connection tracking is occurring exactly?
- floatboth 5y ago
  Even firewalls are just a last resort defense IMO. The primary thing is not having any crap listening on ports in the first place.

This is why we have firewalls. My pfSense router e.g. blocks external access by virtue of it being a firewall with sensible defaults. All routers w/ firewalls will/should have them.

pm90 5y ago

Firewalls are fine but having the ability to make machines unroutable is even more powerful, no? While I get that firewalls are probably safe like 99.99% of the time… I’ve gotta say, I just don’t trust software to not have vulns of some sort that someone important already knows how to break. So eg for a corporate network I would be hesitant to do this, for my personal network not so much (unlikely that a 3 letter agency gives a shit about what I do). Additionally. Firewall changes can sometimes fail for whatever reasons so you might have accidentally exposed a node publicly for some time. Making those nodes not reachable from the internet seems prudent. It’s like your office building has a public address but your office assignments don’t need to be public.

mrkurt 5y ago
Anything smaller than a IPv6 /48 is effectively unroutable. Your ISP has to route smaller blocks, like /64s, privately (because only /48s hit public bgp). And then you have to route the /64 they assign you privately once again.
zekica 5y ago
No. There is no difference between the two from a security point.
justsomehnguy 5y ago
>Firewalls are fine but having the ability to make machines unroutable is even more powerful, no? For the whole world there is absolutely no difference betwen routable address, non-routable address or even an absense of the machine... behind a firewall with drop all on a public interface.
- 300bps 5y ago
  Your statement doesn’t address the point you are responding to so it makes me think you completely missed the point you are replying to. You are correct in theory. What you don’t seem to be taking into consideration are firewall vulnerabilities or other unknown things that could happen that make it different from a practical standpoint. I started an ISP from the ground in 1996. I’ve seen a lot of weird stuff. You seem to just hand waive it away like firewalls are this perfect bastion of security. Maybe you have more experience than I do?
  - blibble 5y ago
    where do you think the NAT and associated connection tracking is occurring exactly?
floatboth 5y ago
Even firewalls are just a last resort defense IMO. The primary thing is not having any crap listening on ports in the first place.