4 ms·
> Because they did ship like that, years ago Yeah, years ago. Years ago there was no encryption whatsoever. "Host based" authentication was common. And not t
by anyfoo 3y ago
> Because they did ship like that, years ago
Yeah, years ago.
Years ago there was no encryption whatsoever.
"Host based" authentication was common. And not the type that used certificates (or, in fact, cryptography of any kind), but the kind where you would enter IP addresses, host names, or even just patterns of those into a file called ".rhosts", and those then were the hosts that were allowed to run commands as root completely without further authentication.
When you shared a folder in Windows using SMB, you usually shared it to anyone, including the Internet. Windows did not even have a good concept of separate user accounts. This is not an exaggeration, a very significant portion of unsuspecting users had their hard disk made available to everyone because they intended to share it with their own little local network. No password, no nothing.
The Internet was littered with public FTP servers, of which a lot, and a lot of very public ones, had a directory called "/incoming" where you could upload and make available things for everyone else.
IRC had a thing called "CTCP", client-to-client-protocol, with which two users' IRC clients communicated directly, client IP to client IP. That's right, you were chatting (or not chatting) to some "rando", and they not only had your IP address, they had the ability to send commands to your IRC client.
WiFi, for a surprisingly long time, had encryption optional. And when it was turned on, it was easy to crack.
The Internet was a very trusting place, and became gradually less so. With or without NAT, routers would have added strict, stateful firewalls, for the same reasons that everything else I've written above stopped.
- kortilla 3y agoYou’re way off on your comparisons. Routers that shipped with WPA3 had an IPv6 setting of “enable ipv6” and nothing else. Comparing it to a bygone era of no encryption is dumb.
- anyfoo 3y agoI’m not sure what you’re saying. That that checkbox enabled IPv6 and made all IPv6 capable devices behind the router accessible without any filtering? You said “had”, so presumably people found out what a bad idea that is and routers added filtering without also introducing NAT for IPv6. Isn’t that exactly the point?
- kortilla 3y agoYes, that’s exactly what they did. The assumption (presumably) was that anyone smart enough to browse the router settings would know to put firewalls on everything. After all, the entire point of ipv6 was to allow connections to internal devices. If the router blocks it, what’s the fucking point? (See the dichotomy now between people who claim ipv6 stateful filtering for routers is obvious and the people who want ipv6?) They eventually added in a default stateful firewall as well for ipv6, which made it completely pointless to convert. Still can’t host games without STUN, etc.
- vel0city 3y agoOn a router I had back in the day that seemed to only offer IPv6 support with a toggle of "enable IPv6" it still had a stateful firewall of all out and no new in by default, you just couldn't add custom rules because its whole legacy firewall UI was based around the NAT port forwarding. I've never had a home router that just completely opened IPv6 to the world on my whole home network.
- progval 3y ago> IRC had a thing called "CTCP", client-to-client-protocol, with which two users' IRC clients communicated directly, client IP to client IP. That's DCC (Direct Client-to-Client). CTCP is another in-line protocol that allows things like /me or asking what software other clients run.