5 ms·

"Systems are not affected if IPv6 is disabled on the target machine."

by gjvc 2y ago

snvzz 2y ago
Notably enabled by default. And adoption seems to be at 45%[0]. 0. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- LegionMammal978 2y ago
  Isn't that number largely driven by the adoption of mobile phones, on their own cellular networks? Which wouldn't necessarily correlate with IPv6 access from Windows machines in particular.
  - sulandor 2y ago
    yes. though all windows machines seem affected
  - HereIGoAgain 2y ago
    Yup, I've been waiting to see someone point this detail out in response to the rosy adoption numbers.
- sylware 2y ago
  In my country, only very few ISPs, including mobile ones, do _NOT_ provide native IPv6... Actually, I was planning to switch off IPv4 but some SMTP servers are still IPv4 only and few other services (msft github for instance).
  - sgjohnson 2y ago
    Unfortunately, disabling IPv4 is not a viable option, unless you run IPv4 literal address translation layer (464XLAT on the server side and CLAT on the clients). Many sites still do not support IPv6, which is a great shame, but slowly but surely we’re getting there. I tried 464XLAT on my home network, for the most part it worked flawlessy, aside from some IoT devices that don’t support v6 at all or are not LAT aware. So dual stack it is.
    - sylware 2y ago
      As I said, really not that many, to a point I was about to turn off IPv4. Ofc, it depends on your usage. But what's very surprising are those Big Tech sites, with billions of $ and still IPv4 only, like msft github (and github has still its core functions working with noscript/basic (x)html browsers). What is really bothering me is the admin of the mail server of my medical insurance company: IPv4... but that's not what is the most annoying, the most annoying: it is not white listing its client SMTP servers/client emails... this is another level of bad.
- nullindividual 2y ago
  Microsoft does not test Windows without IPv6 enabled and encourages customers to keep it enabled even when IPv6 is not deployed on a given network. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/networking/configure-ipv6-in-windows#summary https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-serve... https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/core-infrastructure-and-security/a-5-second-boot-optimization-if-you-ve-disabled-ipv6-on-windows/ba-p/257498 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/core-infrastructure-a...
Borg3 2y ago
Hmm terrible CVE published by Microsoft. Oh well, what I could expect.. Anyway, question is.. If this is mitigated by disabling IPv6 it means its IPv6 stack only issue exploit? IPv4 is safe?
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  Yep, new feature, new buffer overflows :)

"Systems are not affected if IPv6 is disabled on the target machine."

by gjvc 2y ago

"Systems are not affected if IPv6 is disabled on the target machine."

Notably enabled by default. And adoption seems to be at 45%[0]. 0. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

LegionMammal978 2y ago
Isn't that number largely driven by the adoption of mobile phones, on their own cellular networks? Which wouldn't necessarily correlate with IPv6 access from Windows machines in particular.
- sulandor 2y ago
  yes. though all windows machines seem affected
- HereIGoAgain 2y ago
  Yup, I've been waiting to see someone point this detail out in response to the rosy adoption numbers.
sylware 2y ago
In my country, only very few ISPs, including mobile ones, do _NOT_ provide native IPv6... Actually, I was planning to switch off IPv4 but some SMTP servers are still IPv4 only and few other services (msft github for instance).
- sgjohnson 2y ago
  Unfortunately, disabling IPv4 is not a viable option, unless you run IPv4 literal address translation layer (464XLAT on the server side and CLAT on the clients). Many sites still do not support IPv6, which is a great shame, but slowly but surely we’re getting there. I tried 464XLAT on my home network, for the most part it worked flawlessy, aside from some IoT devices that don’t support v6 at all or are not LAT aware. So dual stack it is.
  - sylware 2y ago
    As I said, really not that many, to a point I was about to turn off IPv4. Ofc, it depends on your usage. But what's very surprising are those Big Tech sites, with billions of $ and still IPv4 only, like msft github (and github has still its core functions working with noscript/basic (x)html browsers). What is really bothering me is the admin of the mail server of my medical insurance company: IPv4... but that's not what is the most annoying, the most annoying: it is not white listing its client SMTP servers/client emails... this is another level of bad.
nullindividual 2y ago
Microsoft does not test Windows without IPv6 enabled and encourages customers to keep it enabled even when IPv6 is not deployed on a given network. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/networking/configure-ipv6-in-windows#summary https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-serve... https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/core-infrastructure-and-security/a-5-second-boot-optimization-if-you-ve-disabled-ipv6-on-windows/ba-p/257498 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/core-infrastructure-a...

Borg3 2y ago

Hmm terrible CVE published by Microsoft. Oh well, what I could expect.. Anyway, question is.. If this is mitigated by disabling IPv6 it means its IPv6 stack only issue exploit? IPv4 is safe?

GoblinSlayer 2y ago
Yep, new feature, new buffer overflows :)