Hacker News Reader

Do you really think out of the millions upon millions of installations with wildly diverse contexts and situations all the people including the unsuspecting users CHOOSE to "expose the printer to a public IP"?

Seriously, how are we still at this level of discussion?

View on HN

I am simply confused how it happened, because every consumer router I have ever used in the past decade defaults to not exposing devices.

The wonderful setup of Telstra's Technicolor, at least the one I'm mandated to use by some great NBN contracting, automatically exposes:

+ All ports below 505.

+ Any port requested by NAT.

+ Any DynDNS request.

The printer made a NAT request, and now it's public.

Wow, that is terrible!

IPv6?! The big thing about this was that you'd have end-to-end connections without NAT etc.

Which still doesn't mean exposing everything publicly, but that is a different discussion.

In general I agree, most people affected probably didn't choose to expose the port it just "somehow accidentally happened".

IPv6 doesn't mean no firewall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com