nanog mailing list archives
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
From: Steven Kurylo <skurylo+nanog () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:39:59 -0800
There is a least one situation where NAT *does* provide a small amount of necessary security. Try this at home, with/without NAT: 1. Buy a new PC with Windows installed 2. Install all security patches needed since the OS was installed Without NAT, you're unpatched PC will get infected in less than 1 minute.
Its the firewall included with the NAT which protects against the infection, not the NAT. So you can remove the NAT, leave the firewall, and be just as secure.
Current thread:
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?, (continued)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Dobbins, Roland (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? William Herrin (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? William Herrin (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Lamar Owen (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Steven Kurylo (Jan 12)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Owen DeLong (Jan 12)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Scott Helms (Jan 12)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Chris Adams (Jan 12)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? Scott Helms (Jan 12)
- Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? david raistrick (Jan 12)