Si este no es el camino que quieres tomar, hemos incluido indicaciones de como ajustar estos programas de seguridad. Como cada fabricante es diferente, si necesitas ayuda con estos ajuste, te pedimos que por favor contactes al fabricante de tu programa de seguridad o de tu programa de firewall. Por favor consulta el manual de instrucciones de tu Firewall para instrucciones especificas de como usarlo. Can you explain the consequences to the plebs? Absolutely nothing else on the network will be able to receive anything over UDP.
And it just goes on. This will break just about all of it. This is just mind-bogglingly stupid advice. It does not affect outgoing connections at all, only incoming connections from the WAN to your router.
They are talking about UDP, which is connectionless. There are just packets, going in or out. So you can send a DNS request, but the response will go to the switch, not to you. Sure, the protocol is connectionless, that doesn't mean a firewall can't reason about which side the traffic is originating from in its session table.
True, those instructions are for those users for whom UPNP failed. Which is arguably a security issue if things do work as you've described. You're on An incoming packet from What stops me at I guess the question is: which should take precendence, the dynamic session table, or the static configuration?
I'd tell you the joke about UDP but you might not get it. Please start over. CPLX 1 day ago root parent next [—]. Do we start with a handshake then? If all ephemeral ports are forwarded to the Nintendo Switch, it means that the NAT gateway can't allocate ports for the other devices that require to send or receive something on UDP.
Also, even if "it did only affect incoming connections", where do you expect to receive your reply if all UDP traffic is redirected to the Switch?
Sure, you can send a DNS query, but how do you propose to receive the response? The response is an incoming connection from the WAN to your router. Ehm, no? There might be stupid or very stupid home routers but I'd expect the port forwarding rules to be applied only if an incoming UDP packet doesn't match any NAT connection tracking tuple in the router. Operating systems do. And the router has a clue about those UDP "sessions"?
They're not sessions either, it's just an application declaring that incoming UDP packets with a certain destination port and optionally destination IP, source IP or source Port be delivered to it. Nothing about sessions. The router has no problem sending responses back your way after it has stored the tuple, assuming you're receiving responses on the same port you sent from. UDP connection tracking is nothing new at all.
If you haven't sent anything at all, then you're not a normal client, you're a server and need port forwarding anyway or you're ftp and should be shot. Especially with such wide range ones. I know more than one case where port forwarding disables connection tracking for UDP on those ports. So, you are sure this is a mind-bogglingly stupid advice, but in fact you don't know?
Switch wants all the common ports, and then some. Switch is requesting ALL of the ports, which is going to make the above a bit difficult, to say the least. I'll try an analogy. Your router is an apartment building. The switch is one of the many tenants. The problem: Mail for the switch does not arrive in the correct pidgeon hole of the building. Problem one: Nintendo wants you to take your IP and add So if you live in blahstreet 1 box 7, they tell you to send all Switch post to blahstreet 1 box If someone else happens to own that box, bad luck for him.
But that's the minor part. Problem 2: Nintendo wants you to tape a big paper above the pidgeon holes, saying: Postmaster, please drop all mail in box 27, no matter what box it specifies. Even so, a lot of post will be wrongly delivered to the Switch and thrown away. Other tenants will wonder why they don't get their mail. Problem 3: You become very vulnerable.
The router will send every hacking attempt to the Switch. The tiniest bug in its networking is now critical, as outsiders can just assume your Switch will receive anything they send. To recap, Nintendo is making sure their device receives traffic by throwing every other device you own under the bus. Even a second Switch will suffer. The advice is Dilbert PHB level idiotic but will seem to work for a while.
It is also a massive security liability as any vulnerable software running on the Switch could be used to compromise the console remotely and by extension compromise your home network since your Switch is likely connected directly on it.
AshamedCaptain 1 day ago root parent next [—]. No, it is not. NAT is not a firewall; its goal is to let traffic through, not prevent it. The fact that it sometimes happens to behave like a firewall is very dangerous since it leads people into a false sense of security. This did wonders for most games, but you were in for a nasty surprise if you were relying on NAT to protect your fragile Win9x network If you follow Nintendo steps, what happens is that anybody will hit your Switch directly if they connect to any port on your public IP.
If some services on the Switch are running and listening on the Switch public interface, they will answer. If one of the those service has a security vulnerability, you are in trouble. You just don't want to expose your entertainment devices to the whole world like this.
This setup could make some sense for a DMZ but not a gaming console connected to your local lan. This is exactly why I say that NAT gives a false sense of security. You can't assume that NAT is going to forever hide your device from the public internet because the role of NAT is to pass traffic, not prevent it. The example I mentioned is to show that NAT's heuristics may end up exposing your device anyway, manual port forwarding or not.
So if you really run a device with vulnerable services, you either add a real firewall or disable NAT. If the Switch had any vulnerable ports, they were exposed already long ago. Not to mention: IPv6 networks, public Wi-Fi hotspots, etc. OK, I get what you meant. But still, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Nintendo is giving a terrible advice for the sake of simplicity.
Security is an Onion, built on layers. Should NAT be the only layer, no. But I absolutely can be a layer, just like obfuscation can be a layer. Ekaros 1 day ago root parent prev next [—]. Also it would be really nice bot network From the little I understand of networking, this might mean that other machines on the network will never get that traffic unless the Switch routes it and those machines use it as gateway, which is unlikely.
I think we can safely assume something that needs 20k odd ports forwarded to it won't be doing anything like re-routing and acting as a secondary gateway on the network.
It doesn't strike me that a lot of thought went into how a Switch would be used behind a firewall during the design if you need that many ports. Fnoord 1 day ago root parent prev next [—]. No port can be used by any other computer or server since all are required by Switch , and any port listening on your Switch will be automatically reachable by anyone which is a potential security risk. Does a Switch work if you are IPv6-only? Cause if it'd work with IPv6, a mitigation could be to only use IPv6.
It wouldn't solve the security issue, but it would solve the problem of all external IPv4 ports being used. When you connect to a remote machine, you send traffic to a specific port on that remote machine but also from a specific port on your machine.
The remote port would probably be well-known eg, port 80 on TCP is the well known port for HTTP , but the local port would be chosen from a random range of available ports. Dial up is NOT considered a high speed connection. Host Name The relatively plain English name for a computer attached to the Internet. For example, the nintendo.
It is a set of 4 numbers separated by periods, such as Similar to the license plate on a vehicle, as this number may change at times. For example, the wireless network in your home is a LAN. MAC Address Every piece of network hardware, like that contained within the Nintendo DS, has a unique identifying number that is placed there by the manufacturer.
It is based upon a set standard that all manufactures have agreed upon, and no two MAC addresses are alike. Similar to the VIN number of a vehicle, as the number is not changeable. This number can change if connection settings are overwritten. I'm just sick of it. Firewalls can be a pain in the arse, so here's a quick list of things you need to do to get up and running without disabling your firewall every time you want to use WiFi.
First, do not use Zone Alarm! It's pretty much impossible to get it working with Nintendo's WiFi system, no matter how hard you try with custom rules and such. I recommend Sygate Personal Firewall. It's no longer made because it was sold to Symantec, but you should be able to get it somewhere That'll get rid of most of the problems, apart from the specific IP ranges that Nintendo uses for their services.
Then, load up your firewally's config utility, and make some custom rules these are from the official Nintendo WiFi site Finally, here's some custom rules that I made up. It should unblock all the services and IP ranges that Nintendo uses for all their online stuff:. Connection Tests A - Hopefully they should work for you too Edited on That's a real useful bit of information there.
I know that at least one of my friends'll want help though so I can just direct them to your post instead. I really must get more posts See how effective your setup is. I used the dongle for a while, but I have Zone, so had to switch of the fire wall, even with endless port opening and tinkering.
0コメント