Re: Does IPv6 preclude use of a NAT gateway?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Johan Kullstam <kullstj_ml@verizon.net> wrote:
> Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> > It's probably not the best thing, but I depend on the NAT gateway for
>>>> > a lot of my security--with IPv6, will I still be able to do that?
>>>>
>>>> NAT and security do not match. You better put a good firewall and/or
>>>> IPS system in between ;-)
>
> With IPv6 it is not an issue. It's not like IPv6 is actually routable
> across the internet. :->
>
>>> Hmm, I need to knock on some wood--wait, I can knock on my head--that is
>>> about the same ;-) So far, NAT seemingly has provided pretty good
>>> security for me.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Yes, most of us -wrongly- believe that our NATed router is like a wall
>> between our computers and the dangerous external web (because indeed it
>> is hidding somehow) but this is not a security measure per se but
>> security by obfuscation: that we can't see it does not mean we can't
>> reach it. There can be still holes in router's firmware or bad configured
>> DSL devices that may expose the user regardless NATed or not ;-)
>
> OK, you put a new XP box directly on the internet and I'll put one
> behind a NAT router box. Do you wish to take bets on who can update
> before getting owned?
>
> NAT is a firewall. Maybe not a great one. But it does function as such.
If you're using a NAT box without any firewalling (so none of the
commercial router boxes like Linksys, Netgear, ...), it'll be exactly
the same.
Reply to: