Hacker News Reader

Comment by dblohm7 | Hacker News Reader

Tailscale ACLs can prevent that.

This doesn't solve the problem it just shifts it so that the attacker also has to control ACL assignments as well as node creation.

My knowledge in this domain isn't deep, but..

Isn't the main alternative also an ACL, just in the form of a more course grained firewall? The idea of these networks AIUI is that some of the existing infra, such as firewalls and even application level encryption, are replaced by something that is subjectively easier to administer and monitor. Not saying it is better, just that's it's different. And if it's different, then it makes sense that the attack surface is different too.

Surely ACLs are controlled by the central authority (Tailscale), and not set on each individual device outside of the central authority's control. If so, then the whole ACL argument is moot because the threat model under consideration is that tailscale is compromised and attackers can modify the control plane.

You have to worry about attackers modifying the control plane regardless of whether it's under your control or Tailscale's. You do need to collect the logs of how the nodes allowed to connect are changing to your SIEM. Which should be already done, because they already shove the (extremely verbose) logs into the appropriate places (eventlog on windows, journalctl on linux)

Obviously you have to secure your control plane. The question is who is securing it. I would rather be segregated from other users so I'm not swept up in a breach in tailscale that can compromise every user at once. It's a big single point of failure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com