On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Russ wrote:
> You got anything intelligent to say on just why you think NAT offers ANY
> SECURITY AT ALL??? I can't wait to hear it. I mean ANY SECURITY AT ALL.
I'd like to know if and why this means that masquerading one's network
behind a 'secured' host doesn't provide any added security from just
connecting the network straight out? Or am I missing something here (not
unusual :)?
I was under the impression that if I use some box (Linux with TIS fwtk for
example, or that NT box perhaps?) masquerading my network and using
192.168.x.x-addresses inside, I would be at least a little bit more secure
than if had all my w95/nt/unix machines directly connected to the
internet?
(Not talking super-secure here, not flaming anyone, but just interested!
Pointers do nicely if this is already well-known...)
Calle
References:
-
RE: NT NAT
From: Russ <Russ .
Cooper @
RC .
on .
ca>
|
|
