[146511] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Arguing against using public IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Nov 15 09:18:04 2011
To: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:57:32 GMT."
<6B29C0B1-6852-46CB-B3EB-1F91AF18A7B8@ukbroadband.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:17:20 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, "McCall,
Gabriel" <Gabriel.McCall@thyssenkrupp.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1321366640_32442P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:57:32 GMT, Leigh Porter said:
> Well this is not quite true, is it.. If your firewall is not working and you
> have private space internally then you are a lot better off then if you have
> public space internally! So if your firewall is not working then having private
> space on one side is a hell of a lot more secure!
By the same token, if your firewall fails closed rather than fails open, you're
more secure.
And this is totally overlooking the fact that the vast majority of *actual*
attacks these days are web-based drive-bys and similar things that most
firewalls are configured to pass through. Think about it - if a NAT'ed
firewall provides any real protection against real attacks, why are there still
so many zombied systems out there? I mean, Windows Firewall has been shipping
with inbound "default deny" since XP SP2 or so. How many years ago was that?
And what *real* security over and above that host-based firewall are you
getting from that appliance?
Or as Dr Phil would say "FIrewalls - how is that working out for you?"
--==_Exmh_1321366640_32442P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOwnRwcC3lWbTT17ARAkJXAKDTL2fFZ2xGHmhYQgeDw8+jN/ikYgCg9dSR
MrhAG8sLdKjmv9ptM9iJfWA=
=5QZf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1321366640_32442P--
