On 02-27-22 22:25, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet? Or perhaps there's an alternative to NAT that I'm not aware of..? I thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a router, and I
thought NAT a standard feature of a router for some level of
protection.
On 02-28-22 05:03, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some type of hardware firewall up. ---
On 02-28-22 05:03, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some type of hardware firewall up. ---
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
... People are always available for work in the past tense.
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they
have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some
type of hardware firewall up. ---
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a
router, and I thought NAT a standard feature of a router for some
level of protection.
NAT != security. You've fallen for the big myth that NAT is somehow more secure. All it does is screw up some protocols (FTP anyone?), and puts arbitrary limits on incoming traffic (2 BBSs on the same port, NO WAY!).
;) iptables on Linux does an excellent job
The only thing IPTABLES is good at is that it's stable and free. It's archai and damn near useless for anything other than port blocking and logging traffic.
I am more of a pf fan than an iptables fan, but Iptables is actually fine for redirecting, man-in-the-middleing and doing other tricks other than blocking and logging.
I am more of a pf fan than an iptables fan, but Iptables is actually fine redirecting, man-in-the-middleing and doing other tricks other than blocki and logging.
Yes, but that's not IPTABLES doing any of that. All it's doing is managing packet routing and state (I know I'm oversimplifying it, but let's be realistic about what people actually do with it most of the time).
- Andre
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over again.
On 03-04-22 05:36, Andre wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
Probably does. Most home users only have a single IP.
Firewalls only preceeded NAT by few years, and stateful firewalls came
a couple years after NAT.
On 03-04-22 05:41, Andre wrote to Vk3jed <=-
You're both conflating NAT and PAT, and neither of them screw up protocols. Stateful firewalls screw up protocols if they're
misconfigured and not tracking the full conversation.
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over again.
Maybe try reading the message. :)
Vk3jed wrote to Nightfox <=-
On 02-27-22 22:25, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
NAT != security. You've fallen for the big myth that NAT is somehow
more secure. All it does is screw up some protocols (FTP anyone?), and puts arbitrary limits on incoming traffic (2 BBSs on the same port, NO WAY!).
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Vk3jed to MRO on Sun Mar 06 2022 08:43 pm
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over
again.
Maybe try reading the message. :)
you: nat nat nat. it's not nat. nat nat nat
On 03-04-22 06:56, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's in no way a secure model, but I liked my first setup, where I had
a single IP address and a Linux box with 2 network cards. I ran all of
my services on the box directly with iptables running, and NATed the
rest of my lan over the second card.
Easy, less hassle with NAT, and everything worked.
Quoting Boraxman to Ogg <=-I totally agree. We don't expect privacy so it isn't an issue for many
Jazzy J wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <622DDCFC.2296.dove-internet@jayscafe.net>
@REPLY: <62084A5E.5205.dove-int@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Quoting Boraxman to Ogg <=-
I totally agree. We don't expect privacy so it isn't an issue for many people.
I'm a quad, and I have Amazon Services throughout the house. For
myself, the abdication of my privacy isn't a convenience, it is how I
can be as independent as I can.
Security v. Freedom is a lofty argument. The more something is secure,
the less freedom we have. Many people forget this and want 100% of
both. Well, there is nothing that is ever 100% secure nor is there anything that is ever 100% free -- I think of how much a "free" dog
costs in medical bills after the fact.
The best someone can do is strive to strike a balance between the two.
However, for most people, they don't understand the concept of IoT and never update their TVs, refrigerators, toasters, you name it. Whatever they have in their LANs that pull an IP is vulnerable and a security
risk.
People also don't value their information. They don't understand that
the myriad of trash they are getting in their email or twit feed, etc.
is largely their own making.
Before we can increase electronic security, we need the public to be educated on what electronic security touches. I think the average
person would be confounded and overwhelmed with some of the specifics.
Jazzy J
Most Synchronet BBSes (e.g. web.synchro.net).
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 34:27:15 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 755 |
| Messages: | 92,417 |