On Fri, 3 Jan 1997 dharris @
kcp .
com wrote:
> Added security? Only that extra security provided by not having your network's
> addresses known to the 'net. The NAT provides no extra protection from someone
> "outside" who knows or deduces (from unparsed E-mail headers, perhaps) your
> actual addresses. It also provides no activity logging for later audit, at
> least not as part of the NAT function.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I was under the impression that
the 192.168.x.x-addresses was 'non-routable' or whatever the term is.
Under what circumstances can an external intruder gain access to my
internal 192.168.x.x-machines?
I'm not arguing that NAT is a great firewall, I'm just trying to
understand what the risks are with masquerading 'illegal' addresses behind
a machine that is 'secure enough'. And, sorry, just saying it's useless
without any argument just isn't enough. :)
Calle
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
