[ipv6hackers] IPv6 security (slides and training)
sm at resistor.net
Thu Nov 10 02:20:36 CET 2011
At 15:57 09-11-2011, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
>I do believe that research into IPv6 bugs is valuable, and that effort
>must be put into fixing all issues, but on the other hand I believe
>that the actual risk for a large percentage of users is being
>magnified and is much lower than the risk they face from other
>threats. The actual harm done by NOT deploying IPv6 in the name of
>security will be far worse in the long term for the very people we
>claim we want to protect.
People are comfortable with IPv4 as they have the experience in
working with it. IPv6 is an unknown. If there isn't any benefit in
deploying IPv6, the risks are not counterbalanced. The harm, for
lack of another word, is the complexity injected at the different
layers to ensure service continuity.
>If you kept reading this far, I owe you a beer. Make me remember next
>time we meet ;)
At 16:35 09-11-2011, Fernando Gont wrote:
>I think we'd been better off focusing on the fact that IPv6 provides the
>extra addresses we need, rather than trying to "sell" the IPv6 idea with
>mythology such as "improved security", "improved QoS", etc.
If you keep the message simple, it gets through easily. The myth
about "improved security" is hard to dispel.
More information about the Ipv6hackers