Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

serveo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#91

Post by dorfsmay »

tjoff wrote: post #78
Nextgrid wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never seen NAT being used with IPv6. I don’t see the point, it would be more effort to use it than not.

Yes, but it would be worth it. There is no need nor benefit to have a per-device unique address advertised to the world. If there is a desire for a certain device then absolutely, give it its own IP, but that is the exception.

For privacy, you can setup your OS to require a different random IP every time it reconnects to the network. You will always be in the same /64, but with a different IP.

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#92

Post by ilikepi »

tjoff wrote: post #78
Nextgrid wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never seen NAT being used with IPv6. I don’t see the point, it would be more effort to use it than not.

Yes, but it would be worth it. There is no need nor benefit to have a per-device unique address advertised to the world. If there is a desire for a certain device then absolutely, give it its own IP, but that is the exception.

The benefit is to eliminate the disadvantages and complexity (however opaque) of running NAT.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all devices be reachable by default. It's entirely reasonable and prudent to have a firewall between my home network and the world, but NAT is not strictly required for this.

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#93

Post by guilhas »

rohan1024 wrote: post #8

NAT has crippled the Internet. We are permanently dependent on public facing servers to route packets from one device to the other. This service is absolutely not needed in a non-NAT world. And I strongly believe we have lost a lot by being completely dependent on client-server model of Internet. I've written more about it here https://www.ankshilp.in/post/the_broken_promise_of_internet/

Besides the number of ips what are the advantages?

ipv6 vs ipv4 Which one is better for privacy?

Which one is better for security?

Which one is better for speed?

Which is easier to configure?

Which is better for end user?

Which is better for advanced user / net admin?

Which is better for companies?

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#94

Post by hunter2_ »

shock wrote: post #84
AmericanChopper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, how does it do that? By rewriting the IP headers of packets as they traverse routing devices. If you’re trying to say that all NAT devices are stateless firewalls, then your point is even more contrived than I first thought. > It simply isn't an access control measure. Then why can’t other internet connected devices connect to my internet connected laptop? If I’d connected my laptop directly to my ISP then they…

> Then why can’t other internet connected devices connect to my internet connected laptop? Some of them can. For example a device in the ISP network that can deliver a packet directly to your router's WAN interface can connect to your LAN devices in the absence of a firewall that would drop them. As an example consider this: A packet from src 10.10.10.10 to dst 192.168.1.1 arrives on the WAN interface. There are no f…

Why would the ISP's network deliver a packet to the customer despite that packet having an IP address that doesn't match the IP address the customer leased?

Does this require an adversary who is or who compromises the ISP, possibly by tapping into the coax/fiber/etc in the last mile or by pwning the related nodes?

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#95

Post by tjoff »

ilikepi wrote: post #92
tjoff wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it would be worth it. There is no need nor benefit to have a per-device unique address advertised to the world. If there is a desire for a certain device then absolutely, give it its own IP, but that is the exception.

The benefit is to eliminate the disadvantages and complexity (however opaque) of running NAT. I don't think anyone is suggesting that all devices be reachable by default. It's entirely reasonable and prudent to have a firewall between my home network and the world, but NAT is not strictly required for this.

That is a benefit, true. However I don't feel that it is comparable to the drawbacks.

I'm not suggesting that anyone suggest devices being reachable. Them having a unique identifier is bad enough.

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#96

Post by tjoff »

dorfsmay wrote: post #91
tjoff wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it would be worth it. There is no need nor benefit to have a per-device unique address advertised to the world. If there is a desire for a certain device then absolutely, give it its own IP, but that is the exception.

For privacy, you can setup your OS to require a different random IP every time it reconnects to the network. You will always be in the same /64, but with a different IP.

That's a hack that doesn't protect anything for ongoing sessions. Slight improvement but hardly enough.

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#97

Post by dorfsmay »

tjoff wrote: post #96
dorfsmay wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For privacy, you can setup your OS to require a different random IP every time it reconnects to the network. You will always be in the same /64, but with a different IP.

That's a hack that doesn't protect anything for ongoing sessions. Slight improvement but hardly enough.

Do you use incognito windows for each website you browse and close them before opening a new one? Do you disable cookies completely?

If not, using NAT doesn't add much privacy for "ongoing session".

Also, how many people share your internet connection? If it's a handful, like most household, your one in a handful, pretty small area. If that's a concern to you, you should use a VPN.

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#98

Post by tjoff »

dorfsmay wrote: post #97
tjoff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a hack that doesn't protect anything for ongoing sessions. Slight improvement but hardly enough.

Do you use incognito windows for each website you browse and close them before opening a new one? Do you disable cookies completely? If not, using NAT doesn't add much privacy for "ongoing session". Also, how many people share your internet connection? If it's a handful, like most household, your one in a handful, pretty small area. If that's a concern to you, you should use a VPN.

There is more to the internet than the browser.

And there are other techniques than closing all incognito windows for each site ... Surely you recognize the difference between uniquely identifying a machine from that?

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#99

Post by shock »

hunter2_ wrote: post #94
shock wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why can’t other internet connected devices connect to my internet connected laptop? Some of them can. For example a device in the ISP network that can deliver a packet directly to your router's WAN interface can connect to your LAN devices in the absence of a firewall that would drop them. As an example consider this: A packet from src 10.10.10.10 to dst 192.168.1.1 arrives on the WAN interface. There are no f…

Why would the ISP's network deliver a packet to the customer despite that packet having an IP address that doesn't match the IP address the customer leased? Does this require an adversary who is or who compromises the ISP, possibly by tapping into the coax/fiber/etc in the last mile or by pwning the related nodes?

> Why would the ISP's network deliver a packet to the customer despite that packet having an IP address that doesn't match the IP address the customer leased?

It wouldn't under normal circumstances, but could in the case of a misconfiguration or a malicious actor.

> Does this require an adversary who is or who compromises the ISP, possibly by tapping into the coax/fiber/etc in the last mile or by pwning the related nodes?

Most likely. I also don't consider the scenario likely, because most NATs/firewalls are stateful in this day and age and if the ISP is compromised the attacker could also use TR-069 to upgrade the firmware on the custormer's router and place a malicious implant⁰.

⓪ - http://www.pcworld.com/article/2463480/many-home-routers-sup...

Re: Serveo: Expose Local Servers to the Internet

#100

Post by tjoff »

zimbatm wrote: post #89
tjoff wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it would be worth it. There is no need nor benefit to have a per-device unique address advertised to the world. If there is a desire for a certain device then absolutely, give it its own IP, but that is the exception.

Actually it would make P2P communication much simpler. WebRTC or any other video conferencing software wouldn't need a STUN server if all the clients were able to talk directly to each-other.

First real benefit I guess. Yeah that's nice. Not worth it for me personally though.
Post reply on HN