In general the White House mandate on IPv6 is gaining traction - the National
Laboratories, Universities, and some DoD agencies (DTRA) are running with the mandate. I
would recommend that IPv6 be left on as long as ip6tables/firewall is running. Perhaps a
RHEL 7 STIG requirement?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Wells" <shawn(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:41:51 PM
Subject: Re: IPV6 and security?
On 3/25/14, 3:46 PM, Andrew Gilmore wrote:
Had our IT folks explain that this 3+ year old push is now gaining
traction at my agency.
FWIW, RHT did USGv6 compliance back in 2012:
- PR @ http://investors.redhat.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=716806
- Detailed tech listing @
Are the security concerns around IPV6 about the maturity of the
protocol stack, or the reduced utility of NAT, or?
These sites cover most of the arguments I've heard:
"4 IPv6 Security Fallacies"
"7 IPv6 Security Risks"
Then, once you have the "negative" perspectives/arguments from the above
URLs, a good overview was released by SANS:
In full disclosure, I've only had a single project deal with IPv6. And
it was for a small, closed off network, over a year ago. At the time the
environmental ecosystem of IPv6 was immature. Our SIEM didn't recognize
IPv6 addresses well, so event correlation was frustrating. Beyond that
we had little problems, however we didn't have a massive or complicated
scap-security-guide mailing list
Consultant, Red Hat
(M) (571) 295-4560