mailing list archives
RE: NAT external/Public IP
From: "Grant Donald" <Grant.Donald () datacash co za>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:55:03 +0200
With PAT private IP addresses are hidden from the outside world. This basically makes the job of hacking into a system
more difficult, because the original host's IP address and source port is unknown.
Depending on firewall capabilities (or lack of capabilities) ports may need to be opened inbound for certain
applications to work (e.g.. ident & pptp). A horizontal scan of such a network could produce a wealth of knowledge, if
that network does not support port address translation.
The PCI body cannot dictate to you which firewall to use, neither can they forbid you from opening specific justified
ports into your network. What they can do is insist that you use network address translation, only an additional
hurdle, perhaps just enough to deter a random attacker.
From: listbounce () securityfocus com on behalf of Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
Sent: Mon 2007/10/29 05:58 PM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: NAT external/Public IP
On 2007-10-29 Grant Donald wrote:
There's a real security benefit in using PAT for internet access from
staff PC's. Any alternative is most definitely less secure.
I keep seeing this claim being made. Yet I fail to see anyone giving
evidence to support it.
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential to DataCash Group plc and its group
companies. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please
forward it to info () datacash com with the subject line "Received in Error". If you are not the intended recipient
you must not use, disclose, copy, print, distribute or rely on this email or any of its transmitted files.