[134899] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Jan 12 16:25:14 2011
To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:05:42 EST."
<4D2E17A6.4090708@ispalliance.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:22:51 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1294867371_34736P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:05:42 EST, Scott Helms said:
> > That's simply not true. Every end user running NAT is running a stateful firewall with a default inbound deny.
> Really? I just tested this with 8 different router models from 5
> different manufacturers and in all cases the default behavior was the
> same. Put a public IP on a PC behind the router
At which point you're not running NAT, so it's a different configuration than
the one under discussion.
--==_Exmh_1294867371_34736P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNLhurcC3lWbTT17ARAj04AKDQkYHHctg/mVp2yvRS9K+vgrPysgCfdYgG
tUettG9UYZf1+Hv0yJlVssI=
=gu3w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1294867371_34736P--
