On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:59:00 +0200, Eliot Lear <l...@ofcourseimright.com> may have written: > Well yes. uPnP is a problem precisely because it is some random device > asserting on its own that it can be trusted to do what it wants. Had
From my own personal use (and I'm aware that this isn't a general solution), I'd like a device that sat on those uPnP requests until I logged into the admin interface to review them. Now if you could automate _me_ then it might become more generally useful :- uPnP(ssh, for admin access) -> f/w f/w -> uPnP device: Don't be silly. > But if instead of a pet feeder we're talking about a home file sharing > system or a video camera where you don't want to share the feed into the > cloud? There will be times when people want inbound connections. We > need an architecture that supports them. As someone who manages an application-based firewall, every problem looks like it would be easier to solve using an application-based firewall :) -- Mike Meredith, University of Portsmouth Principal Systems Engineer, Hostmaster, Security, and Timelord!
pgpYa7dseBC5c.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
