1

I'm interested in both IPv4 and IPv6, but more-so IPv6 because of how unfeasible it is to find valid addresses by just guessing-and-checking.

Edit: My concern is that more trust may be given to IPv6, because "knowing" a valid IPv6 address has a greater implicit trustability than "knowing" a valid IPv4 address. I could totally see router manufacturers not adding in checks to reject ULA recipients from the WAN, or software developers leaking more information to IPv6 connections as a result of that.

  • 2
    You mean PUBLIC IP right? – Vipul Nair Jun 25 at 18:09
  • 1
    @VipulNair No, I mean private. Addresses in the range of 192.168.0.0/16 and fd00::/8. – ATLief Jun 25 at 19:45
1

If you are behind a NAT, which you assume in your question, it's not a problem to publish your private IP. Only devices in your private network can use your private IP to connect to your device.

If someone tries to connect to your private IP from outside your private network, he will reach someone else (or not even that), because there is no relation between your private and public IP.

0

Is it insecure to publish the private IP addresses of my devices?

In short NO.

Considering the internet(especially ipv4 addresses) gets brute forced all the time,publishing PUBLIC ip addresses of your device's shouldnt be considered insecure.If your device is internet facing then a Defence in Depth approach should be used rather than hiding your I.P(if that is even possible)

both IPv4 and IPv6, but more-so IPv6

IPV6 provides 128-bit address space so it would be almost impossible to trying to bruteforce that range.But again publishing an Ipv6 should not be considered insecure in and of itself

  • I'm more interested in IPv6 because "knowing" a valid address has a greater implicit trustability than "knowing" a valid IPv4 address. I could totally see router manufacturers not adding in checks to reject ULA recipients from the WAN, or software developers leaking more information to IPv6 connections as a result of that. – ATLief Jun 25 at 19:51
  • Knowing fd00::/ means nothing anyway... – ThoriumBR Jun 25 at 20:42
0

Private IP addresses for both versions (4/6) are totally exposable (there is no risk in exposing them) as a matter of security; and it is basically because there is no way-back having just a private IP to the system which is using that private IP.

  • The private IP of my server is 10.0.0.3. To what risk am I exposed now? – MechMK1 Jun 25 at 19:16
  • @MechMK1 I mean it's OK to expose your "private" ip addresses without any risk Sir. Maybe my sentence wasn't clear enough for you. – FoEvLe Jun 25 at 19:35
0

It's no problem at all. It's like disclosing you live on apartment 201. There's countless buildings having the apartment 201, so it's impossible to tell where you live from that information alone.

Disclosing your private IP address means the same: in lots and lots of places, there will be a device with the same internal IP address as yours, so that information alone does not mean anything.

  • My concern is that more trust may be given to IPv6, because "knowing" a valid IPv6 address has a greater implicit trustability than "knowing" a valid IPv4 address. I could totally see router manufacturers not adding in checks to reject ULA recipients from the WAN, or software developers leaking more information to IPv6 connections as a result of that. – ATLief Jun 25 at 20:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.