You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With dependency on #65 as briefly discussed in the tomat64 subforum as well there could be a nice improvement for the WAN settings where an interface (say 3/4/5G but it can be any connectivity really) can be set to be “OOB Only”.
This would allow a backdoor into the system for administration only.
In certain country it’s very cheap to buy a SIM card that is charged by traffic, apart from the DDNS updates and little more this could be an almost free backdoor into the system that provides big value for remotely administered devices.
The practical idea would be to add under the relevant WAN or perhaps VLAN something like:
This interface is for “Out Of Band” management only [ ]
When set the WAN/VLAN would:
Update the DDNS
Make sure the interface is not present in any routing table (so only answering when a packet comes in)
Restrict traffic to certain protocols only (ssh/https/VPNs)
Restrict attempts
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Ref. https://bitbucket.org/pedro311/freshtomato-arm/issues/321/feature-request-allow-a-wan-to-be-used-for
rs232 created an issue 2024-02-08
With dependency on #65 as briefly discussed in the tomat64 subforum as well there could be a nice improvement for the WAN settings where an interface (say 3/4/5G but it can be any connectivity really) can be set to be “OOB Only”.
This would allow a backdoor into the system for administration only.
In certain country it’s very cheap to buy a SIM card that is charged by traffic, apart from the DDNS updates and little more this could be an almost free backdoor into the system that provides big value for remotely administered devices.
The practical idea would be to add under the relevant WAN or perhaps VLAN something like:
This interface is for “Out Of Band” management only [ ]
When set the WAN/VLAN would:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: