mailing list archives
Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Scott Gifford <sgifford () tir com>
Date: 10 Sep 2001 15:00:45 -0400
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com> writes:
Firewalls aren't accidents. NAT address propogation failures are,
they are not consistent, and can't be relied upon to continue. Who
knows, some genius, somewhere, may fix it tomorrow. Lord knows,
there is sufficient incentive to do so. If that happens, your
security is toast, if all you are relying on is NAT, rather than
putting up a real firewall.
The rest of what you're saying makes sense, but I just don't buy
A clever design might allow NAT to work with all protocols and in both
directions, which would have increased connectivity but decreased
security. But how would it get onto my network without me putting it
there, and presumably configuring it securely? The box doing NAT is
under my control...
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Roeland Meyer (Sep 10)
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... woody weaver (Sep 12)