• orangeboats@lemmy.world
    0·
    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

    • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      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.

        • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          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.

          • orangeboats@lemmy.world
            0·
            5 months ago

            How is this “dropping packets” not applicable to firewalls, then? You are not just going to casually connect to my IPv6 device as we’re speaking. The default-deny firewall in my router does the heavy lifting… just like what NAT did.

            Honestly, it just sounds like you need to brush up on networking knowledge. Repeat after me: NAT is not security.

            • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              5 months ago

              Are you saying that everyone’s router’s firewall drops all packets from connections that originate from outside of their network?

                • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  5 months ago

                  So, really, you were “correcting” me for you and your specific setup at the very beginning because your router’s firewall has a deny rule for all inbound connections because I must have been confusing what a NAT and what a firewall is because I must have been talking about your specific configuration on your specific devices.

                  Holy. Fucking. Shit.

                  • orangeboats@lemmy.world
                    0·
                    5 months ago

                    Oh come on, are you seriously suggesting that default-deny stateful firewall is not the norm??

                    Holy. Fucking. Shit. Indeed.

                    You keep on suggesting to me that you really have no idea how networking works. (Which is par on course for people thinking NAT == security, but I digress)

                    Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall. If it supports NAT, it must support stateful firewalling. To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade. Disregarding routers, even your computer whether Linux (netfilter) or Windows (Windows Firewall) comes built-in with a stateful firewall.