RE: Microsoft urging users to buy Harware Firewalls

["Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>]

Context is important.  We are talking about home computers here.  IPSEC
and multiple servers aren't very relavent to most home computer users.
If someone has more than one computer on a home network, they probably
already have a NAT box to share the network connection.  The suggestion
here is that for folks who are running only one computer should also get
a NAT box if they are connecting to the Internet via a cablemodem or DSL
connection.  NAT boxes have this nice characteristic that they act as a
firewall.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:18 PM
To: Richard M. Smith
Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft urging users to buy Harware
Firewalls 


On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:04:47 EDT, "Richard M. Smith"
<rms () computerbytesman com>  said:

> Windows directory from being accessed from the Internet.  My only
> question is why aren't NAT routers built into all cable and DSL
modems.

Because NAT is *not* a be-all and end-all.  NAT *does* break things.

You can't easily do IPSec through a NAT (meaning you need to do some
tap-dancing
if you want to VPN from one).

NAT breaks a lot of end-to-end stuff - for instance, if you have a NAT,
it's *REALLY*
hard to have 2 different machines running servers on the same port.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3027.txt?number=3027 for all the gory details

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html