Your isp firewall uses nat, and a hacked isp gateway or some other device that had ports forwarded to it are the most likely things to be reaching into your network. They’ll be on that subnet.
I set up a rule last night to allow SSH access from any device on my subnet, is it a good idea to add a separate rule blocking SSH from my router? I’ve already set up SSH with public key authentication so in theory there aren’t many devices that can access it but the firewall restriction seemed like a good idea
If you are worried that an attacker may have compromised your router and that key auth is not secure enough, then yes it would make sense.
I move ssh to a non-default port, only allow key based auth and install fail2ban. This is enough for me. It protects against automated attacks hitting port 22 and prevents brute force.
Yeah, I kind of agree. Unless this is a mobile device pretty much all traffic will come from within your subnet. I often deny incoming from my gateway (i.e. router) and poke holes as necessary.
It’s also comically useless to have a desktop firewall application installed when you’re already behind some sort of firewall solution like a router not forwarding most incoming traffic.
It depends. Sure, maybe somewhat redundant for a home desktop that just stays at home on a network you control, but for a laptop it is absolutely essential.
You may also want a firewall to defend against other devices within your local network. Let’s say you have IoT devices, many of which are poorly secured and maintained by their manufacturers, or you live with family members or guests who don’t practice or even know about proper computing hygiene and are bringing in devices onto your local WiFi.
My IoT devices already have a dedicated network and guest can use my guest WiFi. But yes, you’re right. It depends. And especially for mobile devices some sort of local firewall solution could be relevant. If there are no ports exposed to the LAN you’re pretty save, though.
No you aren’t, browser based malware puts the attacker inside your fancy network. A basic firewall will greatly hinder any attack at basically no cost to you.
There’s incoming and then there’s outgoing traffic. Software firewalls can forbid processes that may be advertised as “offline only” from reaching out; typically a hardware firewall doesn’t care about this kind of thing.
Some people like hosting some servers on their desktop as well, and doesn’t want others on their local network to access them. With firewalls, you can allow specific IP address to reach those servers.
Why not? It’s comically easy to set up one.
deleted by creator
If you allow the whole subnet you might as well not use a firewall. Your router has one and port forwarding is disabled by default.
deleted by creator
Your isp firewall uses nat, and a hacked isp gateway or some other device that had ports forwarded to it are the most likely things to be reaching into your network. They’ll be on that subnet.
deleted by creator
Yes, they’re giving “very simplistic” and also demonstrating how to deny and add access in multiple ways.
It’s also not uncommon to do things like that. The default firewall config in Fedora is wide open for every port above 1024.
deleted by creator
I set up a rule last night to allow SSH access from any device on my subnet, is it a good idea to add a separate rule blocking SSH from my router? I’ve already set up SSH with public key authentication so in theory there aren’t many devices that can access it but the firewall restriction seemed like a good idea
If you are worried that an attacker may have compromised your router and that key auth is not secure enough, then yes it would make sense.
I move ssh to a non-default port, only allow key based auth and install fail2ban. This is enough for me. It protects against automated attacks hitting port 22 and prevents brute force.
Yeah, I kind of agree. Unless this is a mobile device pretty much all traffic will come from within your subnet. I often deny incoming from my gateway (i.e. router) and poke holes as necessary.
deleted by creator
Can you elaborate on that? I’m curious what you mean.
deleted by creator
Thanks. So docker manipulates iptabels directly, thereby bypassing ufw rules. (Your previous comment was just really vague)
It’s also comically useless to have a desktop firewall application installed when you’re already behind some sort of firewall solution like a router not forwarding most incoming traffic.
It depends. Sure, maybe somewhat redundant for a home desktop that just stays at home on a network you control, but for a laptop it is absolutely essential.
You may also want a firewall to defend against other devices within your local network. Let’s say you have IoT devices, many of which are poorly secured and maintained by their manufacturers, or you live with family members or guests who don’t practice or even know about proper computing hygiene and are bringing in devices onto your local WiFi.
My IoT devices already have a dedicated network and guest can use my guest WiFi. But yes, you’re right. It depends. And especially for mobile devices some sort of local firewall solution could be relevant. If there are no ports exposed to the LAN you’re pretty save, though.
No you aren’t, browser based malware puts the attacker inside your fancy network. A basic firewall will greatly hinder any attack at basically no cost to you.
There’s incoming and then there’s outgoing traffic. Software firewalls can forbid processes that may be advertised as “offline only” from reaching out; typically a hardware firewall doesn’t care about this kind of thing.
Some people like hosting some servers on their desktop as well, and doesn’t want others on their local network to access them. With firewalls, you can allow specific IP address to reach those servers.
That’s fine right up until something on your network, even the ISP modem-firewall-router-switch itself, gets compromised.