Yes, but I guess it was a poor example. I was thinking that technically, they aren't at war all the time. Every decade or two, they declare a war and fight each other, and then settle. In between they even talk with each other civilly.
Prices have been coming down for years in nominal terms, let alone real terms. Cg nat does everything that’s needed, there are no significant ip6 only services, there are plenty of ip4 only services, so you have to support ip4 anyway, so why bother with ip6
My company has just turned off all ip6 connectivity for its corporate laptops because it’s considered a security risk. I disagree, but I do agree that having 4 and 6 is a higher risk than 4 alone or 6 alone, and 6 alone sadly still doesn’t work reliably.
All the “promise” of ip6, direct connections etc, were lost when stateful firewalls became required and memory became cheaper than $20 a megabyte. Some bespoke old protocols don’t like ports changing, which can be a problem, but it’s a very small number and easier to work around with modern protocols than support a dual stack environment securely for the majority of places that struggle securing a single stack.
Except for making it convenient for end-user to, say, play P2P video games, or host Mindcraft servers, etc.
> […] and 6 alone sadly still doesn’t work reliably.
It's so unreliable that half of all Internet traffic uses it. It's so unreliable that Microsoft has been going IPv6-only in their corporate networks (a decade ago):
Everything that's needed besides letting computers talk to each other, that is.
With ipv4 you have a two tier internet. Computers talk to servers, servers talk to servers, computers can't talk to computers so every video call must be routed through a server.
I hear this as a cited as a benefit of IPv6 a lot. Honest question: Isn't this at least a privacy issue, at most a security issue? SLAAC seems like what we already have with extra, breakable steps, which doesn't effectively address the privacy issue anyway.
That the server can figure out that two computers in the same house are different since your laptop and phone no longer share the same ipv4 address but instead have two ipv6 address?
Security? NAT is not a firewall, you need a firewall, and switching to IPv6 does not remove your firewall.
Before IPv6: The server gets "1.2.3.4:56789" for your device. After IPv6: the server gets "1:2:3:4::56" or whatever for your device. In either case, if the server makes a connection to 1.2.3.4:56789 or 1:2:3:4::56, your router sees the packet and firewalls the connection. Cool.
Want to give me a concrete example of where IPv6 is hurting my privacy or security, because I've been using it for over a decade with zero mishaps, zero privacy issues, zero security issues (to my knowledge at least)
I've only read that on HN, I've never heard this anywhere else. Since it's been a good 20+ years since my CCNA (and haven't needed to renew it since), could you please offer a real-world example where NAT is not a firewall w/ practical examples relating to 99.9% of cases of home use? I just can't get why people say this a lot here.
NAT works and passes the grandma test. If grandma buys a crappy vulnerable 40$ printer and plugs it in, even if it accepts unauthenticated stuff on every local port, you will not be able to connect to it behind NAT. So what's the difference? The only way I could think this can apply is if the ISP is compromised or criminally mismanaged, in which case you probably already have bigger problems.
So does my Asus with a default deny IPv6 rule on incoming connections.
You're more likely to click on a link that installs malware that attacks your network from the inside, and that attack works regardless of IPv4 or IPv6.
Treating a firewall as some impenetrable moat has not been network security practice for a decade(+), and waving around RFC 1918 address space like systems with a 10.8 or 192.168/16 can't get infected is lazy thinking. It leads to complacency: I'm behind NAT, I'm safe.
Grandma’s ISP can send RFC 1918 traffic to her router and likely be able to directly connect to every internal host. You should have learned in your CCNA training that NAT makes it harder to send inbound traffic to a system, but doesn’t by itself provide the filtering that a firewall does.
Right, I get that. I can see the ISP angle. But my question was specifically for outside attacks. Tangible, real-world threats in existing ISPs, reachable from the outside.
If we're talking tangible, real-world threats in existing ISPs, then NAT is doing nothing to protect you. In fact it's doing the exact opposite, because without NAT you wouldn't be able to connect out from your network.
Even if you want to ignore the fact that most attacks arrive via outbound connections and restrict the discussion to just inbound ones... remove NAT and the exact same set of people that could connect to you before can still connect to you, so it's doing nothing for your inbound connections.
NAT was not designed as a security boundary. Sure, it may block some kinds of incoming traffic accidentally and as a side-effect disrupt some attacks.
But why would you rather have an always-broken network that might block attackers instead of a deliberate "deny incoming" rule that does exactly what you want -- and that you can punch holes in if desired?
Instead we have apps circumventing this accidental barrier with STUN, uPNP, etc with little/no oversight and we also regularly encounter brokenness.
I agree. NAT, while occasionally limiting, was a godsend. Just imagine how the world would look if everyone out there was at the mercy of a well configured router with firewall.
They used to recommend using the MAC address. This was ok 30 years ago when a computer sat in an office on a desk but it makes it very easy to fingerprint a moving computer as it moves across different networks.
Using a random address (Privacy Extensions) solves this problem though, but do we expect everyone to know what that is and check it's enabled? Mine wasn't enabled by default (on Linux) and I only noticed when a bittorrent site warned me.
Everything useful is a security issue. Security is a trade-off, not a positive stat you maximize. Every security tightening removes some utility from a system; the hope is that this disproportionally disrupts the "bad actors" over "good ones".
(All of that hinges on the key question that people seldom ask: what is being protected, and from who. The "two-tier" Internet is, in a way, pointing out a case where regular users are seen as threat actors.)
Yes. Letting anyone talk to anyone was the point of the internet. It's been co-opted by these massive centralising forces and you know what? They're right. With IPv4 everything has to be centralised, we don't even have the faintest chance to avoid it. With IPv6 at least we have a chance to take it back.
Some people will mention stateful firewalls. They're pretty easy to holepunch through because you just need each side to send a packet to the other, then each firewall sees it as an outgoing connection and allows it. It's nothing like IPv4 NAT.
> My company has just turned off all ip6 connectivity for its corporate laptops because it’s considered a security risk. I disagree, but I do agree that having 4 and 6 is a higher risk than 4 alone or 6 alone, and 6 alone sadly still doesn’t work reliably.
I had a very concreteish security risk with IPv6 and openvpn. At least in Debian config openvpn tunneled only IPv4 by default. I only noticed this by being surprised I got results tailored to my origin country instead of the VPN out node country.
It's eternal (dual stack) paper cuts like this why just turning IPv6 off makes life a lot easier.
I would love to know how much of their internal workflows are being handled by AI workflows. Because this seems like the kind of thing your agent might do.
I’m in a location where Apple Maps is significantly better than Google’s. So I’m unsure if you mean ”it’s Apple Maps meme bad” or if you just mean ”it’s rather meh, could be better, could be worse”.
And Google Maps literally did something very similar to me once, just a few years ago. Told me straight ahead when there was a sharp hairpin obscured by overhead bridge (literal mapping issue in unusual motorway adjacent road). Caused a crash with minor injuries I got back up and walked away from (on two wheels, would have been fatal if I didn't brake so well, or didn't get off the road fast enough, a large truck came round the corner). Takeaway is "never make driving decisions based on what the screen shows." There is no platform worth trusting more than your eyes on the road ahead.
If you're referring to Google Safe Browsing lists, all major browsers check agains the same list. I've managed to get mine listed there and immediately banned on all major browsers.
Not only that but I think Google listens to "cyber security" companies lists and feed from them. My website got in some of these lists (https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/a4c9f166d2468f5bbb503ec79...) and I had to go through like 6-7 of them to whitelist my domain again. Something about code and input triggered something in some of these list's filters that my website is hacking related.
I didn't know you could SEND mail with Hide My Email feature, but apparently this is a feature directly in the Mail app. Tapping the From in the mail compose screen opens a dropdown of possible addresses to use or create a new one with Hide My Email.
Tell the students that they will receive a one week notice during the middle of the semester that they need to migrate their git repo to a new server, then teach them the 2 or 3 commands they will need to enter to do this.
They will then understand that it is extremely easy to move a git repo.
IMO there isn't a cookie nightmare but rather a tracking nightmare. I'm not fully up-to-date on if there is a separate EU directive on cookies on the internet specifically, but the GDPR is the _General_ Data Protection Regulation. Meaning that if I go and collect your info on pen and paper, I must then ask your permission on how I process and share that data, especially if sharing that data is not necessary to complete the main transaction but is somehow done auxiliary to the main purpose. (e.g. I buy a pillow online, my info is used to target ads for me.)
GDPR itself doesn't require consent for functional cookies. For example, Apple.com does not have a cookie consent box _at all_.
On tracking specifically, I feel there are at least two levels. One that happens in-browser by third party companies. These are your classic advertisements. The other is more first-party backend-heavy. These would be your local grocery store using your purchase history linked to your membership card and using that data to create analytics and targeted ads etc.
So creating a browser setting would likely not toggle all tracking away, just the ones that are "annoying" while browsing.
There is no legislation on cookies. The legislation is on tracking, or more generally, personal data collection. It doesn’t matter if websites use cookies or other means for those purposes.
..by launching missiles at each other just last year?