I’ve been running my server without a firewall for quite some time now, I have a piped instance and snikket running on it. I’ve been meaning to get UFW on it but I’ve been too lazy to do so. Is it a necessary thing that I need to have or it’s a huge security vulnerability? I can only SSH my server from only my local network and must use a VPN if I wanna SSH in outside so I’d say my server’s pretty secure but not the furthest I could take it. Opinions please?

  • non_burglar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Op means, as they said, a firewall on the server itself.

    NAT is, effectively, a firewall.

    No it isn’t. Stop giving advice on edge security.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Assuming it’s not a 1-1 NAT it does make for a functional unidirectional firewall. Now, a pure router in the sense of simply offering a gateway to another subnet doesn’t do much, but the typical home router as most people think of it is creating a snat for multiple devices to reach out to the internet and without port forwarding effectively blocks off traffic from the outside in.

      • non_burglar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Assuming it’s not a 1-1 NAT it does make for a functional unidirectional firewall.

        That’s like saying a router and firewall are the same thing. NAT appears to be a “firewall” because it’s usually deployed with one. NAT itself has no filtering functions the way you’re describing.

        Now, a pure router in the sense of simply offering a gateway to another subnet

        A “pure” router, as you put it, understands upstream subnets and routing tables. NAT does not, and is usually overlayed on top of an existing routing function.

        You can set up NAT between two subnets as an experiment with no iptables and it will do its job.