[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How insecure are cable connections, versus dialup?

Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org> [2002-12-08 07:29:19 -0800]:

> Well, they fall over pretty easily when hit with a DDOS,

*ANYTHING* falls over pretty easily when hit with DDOS.  There is no
real defense against it at this time.

> and it's not hard to get the equivilent of root on them.

Any details?  (Otherwise I will ignore this as FUD.)

> They don't have stateful firewalling.

Newer ones do.  Anything that does NAT needs stateful firewalling.
Most do NAT today.  (Now we can debate the definition of stateful.)

> About the only thing they're advertised as doing that they actually
> do is NAT.  NAT is not to be relied apon for security.

I strongly disagree.  Anything that does NAT makes an acceptable
firewall for most consumer purposes.

What specifically do you find vulnerable about a NAT based firewall?
Please don't keep security vulnerabilities to yourself.  Security
through obscurity is neither.  The best security comes through open
debate.  If you have found a vulnerability that others have missed
then please share it.


Attachment: pgp76zrVx5YfV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: