this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

39415 readers
176 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The question above for the most part, been reading up on it. Also want to it for learning purposes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fedev@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because devices in your LAN will all be accessible from the internet with IPv6, you need to firewall every device.

It becomes more of a problem for IoT devices which you can't really control. If you can, disable ipv6 for those.

[–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's not necessary to firewall every device. Just like how your router can handle NAT, it should be able to handle stateful firewall too.

Mine blocks all incoming connections by default. I can add (IP, port range) entries to the whitelist if I need to host a service, it's not really different to NAT port forwarding rules.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The argument for IPv6 that there could be a unique address for 200 devices for every person living on the planet was much more compelling when network security was a more simple space.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing has changed about why that is compelling: NAT sucks and creates nothing but problems.

Network security is almost the same with IPv6.

If you rely on NAT as a security measure you are just very bad at networking.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago

I mean that, when IPv6 started filtering out to non-specialists, network security wasn't nearly as complex, and nor was the frequency of escalation what it is today. Back when IPv6 was new(ish), there weren't widespread botnets exploiting newly discovered vulnerabilities every week. The idea of maintaining a personal network of internet-accessible devices was reasonable. Now maintaining the security of a dozen different devices with different OSes is a full time job.

Firewalling off subnets and limitting the access to apps through a secured gateway of reverse proxies is bot bad networking. That's all a NAT is, and reducing your attack surface is good strategy.