Lemdro.id

3 points

5 months ago

You’d better hope that you can NAT ipv6 because if you aren’t behind a CGNAT and then your LAN is completely exposed without a NAT you’re very likely going to have devices exploited.

NATs on people’s boundary has been doing pretty much all of the heavy lifting for everyone’s security at home.

report

[ - ]

orangeboats@lemmy.world

2 points

5 months ago

The word you are looking for is firewall not NAT.

NAT does not provide security whatsoever. If the NAT mapped your (internal IP, internal port) to a certain (external IP, external port) and you do not have a firewall enabled, everyone can reach your device by simply connecting to that (external IP, external port).

I haven’t seen routers that do not come with IPv6 firewalls enabled by default.

report

[ - ]

umbrella@lemmy.ml

1 point

5 months ago

everyone can reach your device by simply connecting to that (external IP, external port)

to be fair thats the setup most people run when they open ports.

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

The word you are looking for is firewall not NAT.

No the word I’m looking for is the NAT. It was not designed for security but coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

Consumer router firewalls are generally trash, certainly aren’t layer 7 firewalls protecting from all the SMB, printer, AD, etc etc vulnerabilities and definitely are not doing the heavy lifting.

By and large automated attacks are not thwarted by the firewall but by the one-way NAT.

report

[ - ]

orangeboats@lemmy.world

1 point

5 months ago

Consumer router firewalls are generally trash

[Citation needed]

They are literally piggybacking on the netfilter module of Linux. I don’t see how that’s trash

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 months ago

They are not layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated. No citation needed unless you believe they are layer 7 firewalls or using something like Snort.

Added some clarification in my first sentence so it makes a bit of sense.

report

[ - ]

orangeboats@lemmy.world

1 point

5 months ago

Wait, why are we talking about Layer 7 when NAT and firewalls are Layer 4 at best?

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 months ago

Because, as I said:

layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated.

The NAT doesn’t have to operate at layer 7 to be effective for this because

coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

The point is that the SPI firewalls are not protecting against the majority of the attacks we’ve seen for decades now from botnets and other arbitrary sources of attacks, except, perhaps targeted DDoSing which isn’t the big problems for most home networks. They must worry about having their OS’ and software exploited and owned in the background, which doesn’t get much of an assist from a router’s firewall.

Obviously, this is however true for the NAT since the NAT are going to drop connections originating from outside the network attempting to communicate with that software to exploit it

barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

report