Basically every local service is accessed via a web interface, and every interface wants a username and password. Assuming none of these services are exposed to the internet, how much effort do you put into security here?
Personally, I didn’t really think about it when I started. I make a half-assed effort at security where I don’t use “admin” or anything obvious as the username, and I use a decent-but-not-industrial password - but I started reusing the u/p as the number of services I’m running grew. I have my browsers remember the u/ps.
Should one go farther than this? And if so, what’s the threat model? Is there an easier way?

  • sunzu2
    link
    fedilink
    34 months ago

    Is ipv6 that bad.

    I keep hearing there is no real benefit and risk to it?

    • @seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Ipv6 is fantastic, it has less overhead than v4 and removes the need for NAT or other translation. Support can be spotty in cheaper and older devices but there’s no reason not to learn and adopt it where possible.

      • DaGeek247
        link
        fedilink
        54 months ago

        You have to take extra steps to ensure that the benefits of NAT aren’t lost when you switch to ipv6. Everyone knowing exactly which device you’re using because a single ipv6 IP per-device is the default.

        Ipv6 is nice, but also you need to know what you’re doing to get all the benefits without any of the downsides.

        • @cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 months ago

          Most devices generate a random IPv6 address and change it frequently. Your browser fingerprint is much more useful for device tracking than your IP address anyways.

          • @seaQueue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            +1, your list of browser extensions, list of plugins and list of available fonts are also available to anyone trying to fingerprint you. This idea that NAT will somehow obscure you enough to be anonymous online is security voodoo.

        • @seaQueue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Your firewall should take care of that, it’s pretty rare to be connected directly without one and by default any decent routing package will filter incoming traffic that’s not in the state tracking table. NAT isn’t designed for security, any security benefit it provides is a side effect rather than the intended purpose.

          Edit: check out ipv6 privacy extensions too, there are solutions there that can reduce info disclosure if that’s a concern. You can accomplish many of the same benefits of NAT with v6 features without the downsides that NAT brings.

          • DaGeek247
            link
            fedilink
            24 months ago

            Not access, knowledge. Giving a specifically unique device identifier every time you visit a page is different from the website guessing if you visited recently based on your screen size and cookies.

            You have to set up ipv6 to change regularly to avoid that.

            • @seaQueue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              44 months ago

              I mean, the horror of having to tick a box to use rotating v6 addresses. These are all solved problems, they’re not a flaw worth ignoring the entire ipv6 protocol over. Most major operating systems have moved to stable privacy preserving addresses by default, that’s true, but it’s not all that difficult to turn on address randomization and rotation either. And, hell, if you’re that married to NAT as security just use NAT66 and call it a day, nothing about NAT is exclusive to ipv4.

          • @BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            There was an article that many Routers were shipped with Ipv6 firewall off, and less savvy users would never know to check