IPv6 Firewall on CPEs - Default on or off
nick at foobar.org
Mon Nov 26 23:13:34 CET 2012
On 26/11/2012 18:38, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Since Vista, firewall, auto-update, IPv6 and AV are all free and on by
> default. And if you turn off updates or AV, it nags you.
Anecdotally, I've noticed that people have an extraordinary ability not to
install updates. This is anecdata from home tech support, so don't
particularly rely on it. Instead, it may be better to rely on autoupdate
percentage rates for windows / os/x / iOS / android / etc. I don't have
these figures to hand, but rather suspect that they are substantially less
This doesn't look good to me. Similarly we can surmise from web stats that
there are many people out there using hopelessly antiquated (but ipv6
capable) operating systems.
> But, please don't say turn on a firewall without giving an explicit
> problem the firewall solves for said user. Please cite CVE IDs in
> your threat analysis / risk assessment.
I'm not talking about just windows o/s holes here. Any application which
is installed and which binds to a socket will automatically offer the user
the chance to punch a hole in their firewall and most users will not be in
a position to make an informed decision as to the wisdom of doing this, so
they click the "yeah, yeah, yeah, get on with it" button, whichever that
happens to be. So if you look at Secunia figures (and I'm not advocating
either their products or their data collection methodology here):
it indicates substantial problems with installed programs. How many of
these refer to programs which listen on sockets? Probably quite a few.
You asked for CVE IDs. One of the more notorious was CVE-2012-0002, which
was particularly bad because it was remotely exploitable, it would have
been explicitly enabled for firewall punch-through, and it affects people
who have a requirement for remote support.
Another data point: compromised machines (e.g. by fly-bys) can be contacted
directly instead of phoning home. This means that traditional C&C servers
can be moved to arbitrary machines, as there is no requirement for them to
maintain a consistent IP address / hostname so that infected bots can
connect into them. So long as they maintain a list of affected ip
addresses, they can connect into infected hosts directly. IPv6 is
potentially much worse than this because if you're not using privacy
extensions, you may end up with the same publicly accessible ipv6 address
for very long periods of time. This means that the traditional arguments
about connectivity being difficult due to sparse allocation of addresses on
a LAN are unlikely to apply. People will be creative about finding out and
maintaining lists of contactable addresses. A couple of papers have been
written about this, but my google-fu is failing me right now.
I put my hand straight up and say that this is not in any way a
comprehensive analysis, but it is based on professional experience in
dealing with desktop IT issues over a long period of time.
My experience tells me to play it safe and do things which remove, minimise
or at least reduce the risk to the end user. Sticking them on an internet
link with no line of defence between them and their attackers seems like a
really bad idea to me.
More information about the ipv6-ops