3 ms·

I certainly don't want ingress from the public Internet to devices on my home network in the general case This is ultimately an operating system issue. For mos

I certainly don't want ingress from the public Internet to devices on my home network in the general case This is ultimately an operating system issue. For most of the history of the web, we've used NAT routers and firewalls as a fig leaf over the operating system issue. What is it? Operating systems are extremely promiscuous about listening for traffic on a multitude of ports. Operating systems are promiscuous about including a vast number of daemons running in the background handling a variety of tasks. Operating systems are promiscuous about running a bunch of daemons that phone home all the time. All of this stuff is completely opaque to the user. All of it occurs on a default opt-out basis. All of it requires an extraordinary amount of knowledge for the user to feasibly withdraw consent. This is the operating system problem. In another world, I can envision computers running operating systems which are totally transparent and easily understood by their users. All running services would be opt-in and users would be fully aware of exactly what's happening on their machines. That would be the world where end-to-end internet connectivity is highly desirable.

mschuster91 4y ago
> In another world, I can envision computers running operating systems which are totally transparent and easily understood by their users. All running services would be opt-in and users would be fully aware of exactly what's happening on their machines. That would be the world where end-to-end internet connectivity is highly desirable. Even then, you have the issue of bugs - not just in the programs themselves, but also in the kernel-mode stack and even in the hardware. As long as something is reachable from the Internet, it will get scanned and assaulted from the Internet - and the lower your attack surface is, the better.
- chongli 4y ago
  operating systems which are totally transparent and easily understood by their users I sort of glossed over this part so now I have a chance to elaborate. Alan Kay has put a ton of thought into this issue [1]. He firmly believes that we can build an operating system and application software with an extremely small footprint (LOC's) so that a single person can understand the whole thing. Since he gave that talk, we've moved further and further away from Kay's vision. We've made things more and more complex, opaque, centralized, and difficult to change. We've given away our future to big tech companies. Heck, we've even given away the past. We've lost much of the freedom we had back in the 90's, let alone the 70's and 80's when Kay did so much of his work. We're going to have to work incredibly hard just to regain what we've lost. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    No one human mind could ever grok the entirety of say, iOS or Android. Do we just go back to the software Middle Ages?
throwaway894345 4y ago
> This is ultimately an operating system issue. It's ultimately an issue at every layer, hence "defense in depth". Every layer does its part for security, we don't punt because some other layer ought to handle it.
- chongli 4y ago
  That’s one way. Another way is to remove some layers. You don’t need to secure nonexistent layers.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    You don't need to secure non-existent layers but you probably shouldn't remove your front door to prevent people from picking its lock.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    The IP layer exists whether you're using v4 or v6.
    - chongli 4y ago
      I realize the OP is about IPv6 but my comment puts the blame on operating systems. Between the operating system running on the server, through the routers of the internet and a user’s home router, through the consumer operating system running on the user’s laptop, and all of the firmware and microcode along the way, there are many, many more layers involved what is specified in the OSI model. And so many of these layers exist for legacy reasons, business expedience, and market failure. They don’t actually make things better.
jherico 4y ago
I don't think it's just an OS issue, because people often want promiscuity within their home network, but want a moat and drawbridge keeping the rest of the world from that network. There's too much value in home / office situations where you want discoverability enabled, but only to other devices behind your gateway to the internet at large.
- chongli 4y ago
  Personally, I’d prefer not to have this isolation. I’d rather be able to access my home computer, printer, and other devices from anywhere in the world, not just when I’m at home. Moats and drawbridges are an anachronism from the Middle Ages.
  - jherico 4y ago
    Right, but you don't want anyone in the world to have access to your home computer and printer, right? You're talking about a different problem: How can I extend the concept of my "home network" to the devices that I use and trust regardless of where I am? I'd argue that this is something that suggests that VPN functionality should get built into gateway devices. Regardless, I don't want scammers in Malaysia port-scanning my 10 year old printer that's never going to get a security update.
    - chongli 4y ago
      I want anyone in the world to have access to my home computer and printer when I authorize it. Right now, to do that I have to configure my router as well as my operating system to allow it. But what if I'm not at home? I might be on someone else's network. Now I am at their mercy to configure the router so that my computer is accessible. In all likelihood, they will refuse to help me.
      - teawrecks 4y ago
        You're talking about widening your attack surface as wide as physically possible (no virtual devices yet). Now you need to ensure every device that can see the internet is perfectly impenetrable. How feasible you think that is?
teawrecks 4y ago
Why would I opt for a network topology that restricts what devices/operating systems I can safely use on my network? Especially when I already have a solution that doesn't restrict me in this way? It's like saying, if a person walking around at night gets mugged, it's a "them" problem for not carrying a weapon to defend themselves. Uh, no, let's create an environment where even a completely unprotected child is safe. Oh wait, we already have.

mschuster91 4y ago

> In another world, I can envision computers running operating systems which are totally transparent and easily understood by their users. All running services would be opt-in and users would be fully aware of exactly what's happening on their machines. That would be the world where end-to-end internet connectivity is highly desirable. Even then, you have the issue of bugs - not just in the programs themselves, but also in the kernel-mode stack and even in the hardware. As long as something is reachable from the Internet, it will get scanned and assaulted from the Internet - and the lower your attack surface is, the better.

chongli 4y ago
operating systems which are totally transparent and easily understood by their users I sort of glossed over this part so now I have a chance to elaborate. Alan Kay has put a ton of thought into this issue [1]. He firmly believes that we can build an operating system and application software with an extremely small footprint (LOC's) so that a single person can understand the whole thing. Since he gave that talk, we've moved further and further away from Kay's vision. We've made things more and more complex, opaque, centralized, and difficult to change. We've given away our future to big tech companies. Heck, we've even given away the past. We've lost much of the freedom we had back in the 90's, let alone the 70's and 80's when Kay did so much of his work. We're going to have to work incredibly hard just to regain what we've lost. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY
- jamiek88 4y ago
  No one human mind could ever grok the entirety of say, iOS or Android. Do we just go back to the software Middle Ages?

throwaway894345 4y ago

> This is ultimately an operating system issue. It's ultimately an issue at every layer, hence "defense in depth". Every layer does its part for security, we don't punt because some other layer ought to handle it.

chongli 4y ago
That’s one way. Another way is to remove some layers. You don’t need to secure nonexistent layers.
- thfuran 4y ago
  You don't need to secure non-existent layers but you probably shouldn't remove your front door to prevent people from picking its lock.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  The IP layer exists whether you're using v4 or v6.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I realize the OP is about IPv6 but my comment puts the blame on operating systems. Between the operating system running on the server, through the routers of the internet and a user’s home router, through the consumer operating system running on the user’s laptop, and all of the firmware and microcode along the way, there are many, many more layers involved what is specified in the OSI model. And so many of these layers exist for legacy reasons, business expedience, and market failure. They don’t actually make things better.

jherico 4y ago

I don't think it's just an OS issue, because people often want promiscuity within their home network, but want a moat and drawbridge keeping the rest of the world from that network. There's too much value in home / office situations where you want discoverability enabled, but only to other devices behind your gateway to the internet at large.

chongli 4y ago
Personally, I’d prefer not to have this isolation. I’d rather be able to access my home computer, printer, and other devices from anywhere in the world, not just when I’m at home. Moats and drawbridges are an anachronism from the Middle Ages.
- jherico 4y ago
  Right, but you don't want anyone in the world to have access to your home computer and printer, right? You're talking about a different problem: How can I extend the concept of my "home network" to the devices that I use and trust regardless of where I am? I'd argue that this is something that suggests that VPN functionality should get built into gateway devices. Regardless, I don't want scammers in Malaysia port-scanning my 10 year old printer that's never going to get a security update.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I want anyone in the world to have access to my home computer and printer when I authorize it. Right now, to do that I have to configure my router as well as my operating system to allow it. But what if I'm not at home? I might be on someone else's network. Now I am at their mercy to configure the router so that my computer is accessible. In all likelihood, they will refuse to help me.
    - teawrecks 4y ago
      You're talking about widening your attack surface as wide as physically possible (no virtual devices yet). Now you need to ensure every device that can see the internet is perfectly impenetrable. How feasible you think that is?

teawrecks 4y ago

Why would I opt for a network topology that restricts what devices/operating systems I can safely use on my network? Especially when I already have a solution that doesn't restrict me in this way? It's like saying, if a person walking around at night gets mugged, it's a "them" problem for not carrying a weapon to defend themselves. Uh, no, let's create an environment where even a completely unprotected child is safe. Oh wait, we already have.