Re: NAT external/Public IP

["Chris Barber" <cmbarber () gmail com>]

PCI Compliance does not equal a secure network.  But it brings you
closer than not being compliant.

Chris.


On 10/25/07, Jason Alexander <jalexander () plus net> wrote:
> If its not a security risk then why is it a PCI requirement?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> Sent: 25 October 2007 15:49
> To: security-basics () securityfocus com
> Subject: Re: NAT external/Public IP
>
> On 2007-10-25 crazy frog crazy frog wrote:
> > On 24 Oct 2007 15:46:21 -0000, smarts_buy () yahoo com wrote:
> > > Would like know is ther any security concern to bring in
> > > external/public IP with out NAT to inside of the enterprise network.
> > > Is it any way more secure if we use NAT?
> [...]
> > 2)If you allow lots of machine to direct access the internet with
> > external ip they may pose a security risk.
>
> How would that pose a risk that would not exist with NAT'ed machines?
>
> Regards
> Ansgar Wiechers
> --
> "All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches becoming available."
> --Jason Coombs on Bugtraq