• 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.

            • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              5 months ago

              Having a NAT on a consumer router is indeed the norm. I don’t even see how you could say it is not.

              I never said NAT = security. As a matter of fact, I even said

              It was not designed for security but coincidentally blah blah

              But hey, strawmanning didn’t stop your original comment to me either, so why stop there?

              Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall.

              I never even implied the opposite.

              To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade.

              Right, because masquerade is NAT…specifically Source NAT.

              I’m just going to go ahead an unsubscribe from this conversation.