upvote
> most of the time they are unwanted users trying to break in.

Exactly. Of all the reasons why the average person doesn't have an Internet-visible server, NAT, I would say, is pretty far down on the list.

reply
1. NAT and a firewall are 2 different things 2. With IPV6 you can have so many IPS that unwanted users can't guess your IP. This isn't true security but see 1 for that.
reply
> 2. With IPV6 you can have so many IPS that unwanted users can't guess your IP.

In fact you could have an IPv6 address for each user, and if one starts becoming troublesome both revoke account and stop using that address.

You could create a new IPv6 address every millisecond, and it'd take 584,868,233 years to exhaust a IPv6 subnet (/64).

reply
> most of the time they are unwanted users trying to break in

Thankfully, we have wireguard now. It drops all packets by default. From the perspective of people who don't have the requisite cryptographic keys, it's like the computer is not even there to begin with.

I've always found it strange how people just put computers out there on the internet and just allow them to interact with total internet randoms. Why are we allowing our computers to talk to strangers? No wonder people are getting hacked.

reply
If the utility and functionality of the server requires those things, then they're required regardless of whether or not that server is internet-facing.

Jill from Elbonia may be always be a threat, but this doesn't mean that Joe from Accounting is not a threat or cannot ever provide a vector for Jill. :)

reply
I mean, no, you don't have to worry about all that stuff unless the business logic demands it. The OP is entirely correct for eg just serving a static file.
reply