4 ms·
This seems to be agreeing with me and many of the others? A stateful firewall is a useful thing on its own, but it's also a fundamental requirement for modern N
by kiallmacinnes 8y ago
This seems to be agreeing with me and many of the others? A stateful firewall is a useful thing on its own, but it's also a fundamental requirement for modern NAT implementations.
NAT on the other hand is not a fundamental requirement for a firewall.
NAT bolts onto a firewall, and it's the firewall that provides the security. Remove NAT, and you haven't lost anything in terms of security.
- Dylan16807 8y agoI'm saying that such a NAT can exist by itself without a true firewall.
- Dagger2 8y agoA stateful firewall isn't a fundamental requirement for NAT though, even modern NAT ("or actually PAT", as other posters seem to like saying...). State tracking is certainly a requirement, but tracking state is separate from firewalling based on that state. This is why firewalling is separate from NAT, and why NAT isn't a firewall. Yes, it's true that both NATing and firewalling rely on tracking state, and typically both NAT and firewalling are implemented together in the same software and hardware, but they're two separate behaviors and you can do one without doing the other.