Skynet New Release 7.2.6 migrates to 7.2.7 to 7.2.8 to ((7.3.0 Repealed))

[Twiglets]

FYI:
Adamm has rolled back the latest version to '19/10/2021 - v7.2.8'.
Can apply via AMTM as usual.

 

[Ninko]

If I restore a jffs backup I have, will that revert skynet to the version before? Sorry, I never really understood the jffs partition.

Thanks

 

[Diamond67]

If I restore a jffs backup I have, will that revert skynet to the version before? Sorry, I never really understood the jffs partition.

Thanks

At least with my case, restoring the jffs backup reverted Skynet to the version which was up and running at that very time when you saved your backup file.

 

[Ninko]

Thanks @Diamond67 I'll try that should I need to again, I ended up having to pretty much start again!
I have the jffs backups, but I was never sure when to use them.

 

[CriticJay]

I've decided to stop using Skynet and uninstalled it.

Partly due to the 7.3.0 shenanigans; partly due to a pure IPV4 connection using NAT shouldn't really be needing it; and partly due to the on-router Speedtest going up by about 100-130mbps after uninstalling Skynet.

 

[dave14305]

partly due to a pure IPV4 connection using NAT shouldn't really be needing it;

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but can you explain this particular reasoning?

 

[CriticJay]

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but can you explain this particular reasoning?

My understanding is that NAT acts as a firewall itself and will prevent unsolicited "foreign" entities from connecting, if the connection was not initiated by a device behind the firewall.

 

[dave14305]

My understanding is that NAT acts as a firewall itself and will prevent unsolicited "foreign" entities from connecting, if the connection was not initiated by a device behind the firewall.

The normal firewall (sans Skynet) will block all incoming unsolicited traffic by default. When you open ports for VPN, Remote SSH, Remote Web, Port Forwards, etc. you are susceptible to the bad guys probing your WAN IP address for those open ports. The firewall won't help you if you've specifically asked it to allow these ports to be open. This is where Skynet would help keep the bad guys out but let your own unsolicited traffic come in.

If you have no ports open to the WAN, then I agree Skynet's inbound blocking isn't as useful as its outbound blocking.

 

[CriticJay]

The normal firewall (sans Skynet) will block all incoming unsolicited traffic by default. When you open ports for VPN, Remote SSH, Remote Web, Port Forwards, etc. you are susceptible to the bad guys probing your WAN IP address for those open ports. The firewall won't help you if you've specifically asked it to allow these ports to be open. This is where Skynet would help keep the bad guys out but let your own unsolicited traffic come in.

If you have no ports open to the WAN, then I agree Skynet's inbound blocking isn't as useful as its outbound blocking.

Yes, that makes it more clear. However, that relies on the "bad guy" being on one of Skynet's lists, no?

I thought about Skynet's outbound blocking too. In 6 months, the only things its registered are some of my VPN provider's endpoints - for some reason they got on one of Skynet's lists.
So I had to whitelist a number of my VPN provider's endpoints otherwise I wouldn't be able to connect to them.
Other than that... nothing.

 

[Amwjujo]

I've decided to stop using Skynet and uninstalled it.

Partly due to the 7.3.0 shenanigans; partly due to a pure IPV4 connection using NAT shouldn't really be needing it; and partly due to the on-router Speedtest going up by about 100-130mbps after uninstalling Skynet.

I switched off skynet a few mounts back because of the speed issue as well. At that time I thought it was a problem with spdMerlin until I realised it was Skynet doing that.
I checked what Dave said and I have no ports open to the WAN so I should be safe ... for the moment.

 

[nlurker]

I also uninstalled Skynet several weeks ago. It was never clear to me what benefit I was receiving from it, but the problems it kept causing were all too clear. I have been happier without it (as has everyone else in this household).

 

[alchemy]

I for one am very thankful to have and use Skynet! Hopefully it will continue to be usable in all future Merlin releases.

(All my outbound blocks are from random Torrent upload connections. I've also gladly withdrawn from TrendMicro approvals.)

 

[rexbinary]

Skynet is the most important add-on to me personally. Security is first for me above other features.

 

[Tech9]

I for one am very thankful to have and use Skynet!

Skynet in default configuration mostly displays the recognized IPs. Perhaps all of your 21113 inbound blocks would have been dropped by the firewall anyway. The script is making you believe it is doing very hard work to protect you. Go to your router's GUI and change Logged Packets Type in Firewall from None to Dropped and watch blocked connections all day long, without Skynet. No stats and graphs to freak you out though. Folks who don't know well what exactly Skynet is doing believe they are doomed without it. Nothing even close.

 

[alchemy]

I'm trying to show support to the developer of an addon that many people here still use and appreciate!
@Tech9 Stop being a troll. If you read my post, I never mentioned a thing about my inbound blocks, only my outbound (under the pic).

 

[Tech9]

I'm trying to show support to the developer

Ah, okay! I was thinking we are talking about Skynet. Sorry.

Here:

Asuswrt-Merlin AddOn Developers Donation Links

AddOn developers create many useful scripts, WebUI addon pages, system extensions and useful utilities to enhance Asuswrt-Merlin supported routers. These "devs", like RMerlin, do this all voluntarily. This requires lots of time, effort, support of users, upkeep and maintenance. They do it for...

www.snbforums.com

 

[grifo]

Folks who don't know well what exactly Skynet is doing believe they are doomed without it. Nothing even close.

Folks use Skynet to protect themselves against known bad actors on their open and forwarded ports, as well as on connections originating from their LAN towards the Internet and/or what comes back, all of which aren't protected by the built in firewall or NAT. The IOT blocking feature is the cherry on the cake, a very well baked one.

False positives on the (third party) blocking lists happen seldom enough IMO, the recurring github.com one has been an exception. When they happen it's easy and fast to whitelist the IP via the menu system. The issue with v. 7.3.0 was a first and Adam fixed it quickly, it's likely that the vast majority of users never got the update.