Thanks for the info!
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
The view taking in hardening systems is if you don't need
off so that you don't have inadvertent security problems. Paraphrasing the
RHEL5 SNAC guide, it says if you need IPv6, here are the hardening steps.
you do not, then turn it off. That is the prudent thing to do in all cases.
Definitely, and for the last 12 years, all I've heard is we don't need
IPV6, turn it off.
Put another way, its not that IPv6 is insecure...its very well
that if you don't need it or use it and a security bulletin comes along for
it, its easy to dismiss because you didn't intend to use it.
This was part of my real question, I guess. Much of what I had heard about
IPV6 focused on the relative maturity of the stack, compared to IPV4, and
suggested that some of the same types of critical vulnerabilities that we
saw in the 90s may be lurking in this stack. It's good to hear your
confidence in the tech.
I'd put this back on the OP. Who said it _is_ insecure?
I implied that there were concerns, but that was an uninformed position.
This may have been fostered in other benchmarks I've been involved in, but
I'd have to go re-read them to make sure I wasn't reading it in.