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?

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    But if they do, they have every password for all your stuff. hopefutlly you have Ipv6 disabled

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Just because each device has a globally routable IP address doesn’t mean they can be accessed from outside your LAN. You still have to add a firewall rule to open a port to the device.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I was referring to the latest CVE for ipv6 where an attacker just sends a flood of IPv6 packets which puts things like WindowsOS into a mode for remote code execution, even via webpage. Windows remedy right now is turnoff all ipv6 capability, as they don’t have a fix yet

          • BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            I have seen both. Typically you expect somebody self hosting to be about privacy and freedom, and thus choosing Linux, but there are WinFans too

          • BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Of course, but for a person with all machines on network having same user name and password it could become a larger problem

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      IPv6 should not be disabled under any circumstances.

      In fact, many devices in my house have IPv4 disabled. Disabling IPv4 on my public-facing SSH reduced the attack traffic to zero.

      IPv4 is shit.

      • Turbo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Why not disable ipv6 for local lan?

        I disable It on everything for next decade until it’s mainstream.
        .

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was referring to the latest CVE for ipv6 where an attacker just sends a flood of IPv6 packets which puts things like WindowsOS into a mode for remote code execution, even via webpage. Windows remedy right now is turnoff all ipv6 capability, as they don’t have a fix yet

        • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          30 days ago

          I know about that one. The 800MB “fix” for it has been crashing machines quite hard.

          I don’t have that problem because I don’t run Windows.

          Windows is shit.

      • seaQueue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month 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
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month 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
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month 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
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month 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.

            • BCsven@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

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

            • DaGeek247@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month 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
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month 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.