> On May 14, 2020, at 8:23 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snip] > > It depends a lot on the relative cost of sending a service person there to > repair the device (push the button, reflash or replace the device), vs the > risk of the box not operating at all. > > In the NAT44 home router situation, the lack of an iptables to do MASQ or > port forwarding results in the "firewall" failing closed. > No packets traverse, but the box might be accessible by network for repairs > from one side or the other. > > In the IPv6 and routed IPv4 situation, if packet forwarding is enabled, then > the box might continue to provide critical functionality, and it might be > possible to repair it remotely. > > In the case where this isn't a router, but a NAS, or some other IoT device, > then the lack of a firewall, if the device has multiple layers of security > (no stupid default passwords, or no passwords at all) result in a lowered > level of security, but not zero security. > > In general, I think that this decision needs to up-leveled to as a build > option. There are many cases where I would agree: you want the box to die > rather than potentially come up insecurely. >
A while ago I posted an option to “bake in” a default root password but it was nixed. https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/622 Too bad. -Philip _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
