On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Paul Mansfield
wrote:
>
> thinking aloud...
>
> if your provider provides ipv6 as well as ipv4 and devices on your lan
> are also ipv6, then you're more likely to have a major security breach??
>
I was thinking of that scenario earlier in the thread but didn't
men
> I still don't follow. NAT is not a security mechanism, and MAC addresses are
> not privileged information.
True, but once you know the MAC you can find out the vendor quite easily, and
then go about running exploits specific to that piece of hardware.
> Adam - While that's certainly true,
> people won't be using NAT in an ipv6 network, so they'll have real IPs
> which will contain their MAC addresses, making it much more likely that
> the internet at large will be able to connect to them.
I still don't follow. NAT is not a security mechanism, and MAC addresses are
not privileged
- "Tim Nelson" wrote:
> - "Tim Nelson" wrote:
> > - "Paul Mansfield" wrote:
> > > On 04/08/10 18:31, Tim Nelson wrote:
> > > > There is no option for legacy mode in the BIOS. :-(
> > >
> > > presumably there's no PS2 keyboard port?
> > >
> > > or if there is, your keyboard isn't th
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 18:06 +0100, Paul Mansfield wrote:
>> if your provider provides ipv6 as well as ipv4 and devices on your lan
>> are also ipv6, then you're more likely to have a major security
>> breach??
people won't be using NAT in an ipv6 network, so they'll have real IPs
which will conta
On 09/08/10 17:57, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> thinking aloud...
>>
>> if your provider provides ipv6 as well as ipv4 and devices on your lan
>> are also ipv6, then you're more likely to have a major security
>> breach??
>
> It's only really thinking out loud if you including your reasoning, otherw
> thinking aloud...
>
> if your provider provides ipv6 as well as ipv4 and devices on your lan
> are also ipv6, then you're more likely to have a major security
> breach??
It's only really thinking out loud if you including your reasoning, otherwise
it's more like 'concluding out loud'.
Why do
On 07/08/10 06:06, Tortise wrote:
>>> My ISP advised us not use common private LAN addresses for this
> Woops - sorry for being misleading. I meant (and use) random numbers
> taken from within the private address ranges. (10.x.x.x etc)
rfc1918, IIRC, actually says to choose a random range.
at $
thinking aloud...
if your provider provides ipv6 as well as ipv4 and devices on your lan
are also ipv6, then you're more likely to have a major security breach??
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For addi
