nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:16:10 +1100
In message <00df01c98b27$3181b7e0$948527a0$@com>, "TJ" writes:
The SOX auditor ought to know better. Any auditor that requires NAT is incompenent.Sadly, there are many audit REQUIREMENTS explicitly naming NAT and RFC1918 addressing ...SOX auditors are incompetent. I've been asked about anti-virus software on UNIX servers and then asked to prove that they run UNIX.........Fair enough, but my point was that it isn't the auditors' faults in _all_ cases. When the compliance explicitly requires something they are required to check for it, they don't have the option of ignoring or waving requirements ... and off the top of my head I don't recall if it is SOX that calls for RFC1918 explicitly but I know there are some that do.
Please cite references. I can find plenty of firewall required references but I'm yet to find a NAT and/or RFC 1918 required. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Newton (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Kaufman (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Andrews (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Peach (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Seth Mattinen (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Andrews (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Kaufman (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Osmon (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Palmer (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mohacsi Janos (Feb 10)