4 ms·

I find this argument to be completely ridiculous, and it’s become remarkably common among those who wish to justify some of IPv6s shortcomings. Whether it was d

I find this argument to be completely ridiculous, and it’s become remarkably common among those who wish to justify some of IPv6s shortcomings. Whether it was designed to be a security control or not, it is one, and it’s an incredibly important one. Anything that controls how hosts are allowed to communicate with each other is a security control. The argument is so absurd that I literally can’t believe people go around parroting it.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
Please explain how NAT without a stateful firewall provides security against what.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  It allows you to connect a private network to any other network, including the internet, without allowing hosts on that network access to hosts on the private network. It’s a form of access control. What is your justification for saying that access control measures are not security controls? That is so incredibly contrived.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > It allows you to connect a private network to any other network, including the internet, without allowing hosts on that network access to hosts on the private network. So, how does it do that? > What is your justification for saying that access control measures are not security controls? I am not saying that. It simply isn't an access control measure.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      > So, how does it do that? By rewriting the IP headers of packets as they traverse routing devices. If you’re trying to say that all NAT devices are stateless firewalls, then your point is even more contrived than I first thought. > It simply isn't an access control measure. Then why can’t other internet connected devices connect to my internet connected laptop? If I’d connected my laptop directly to my ISP then they would be able to. But I didn’t do that, I connected my home router to my ISP, and I connected my laptop to my home router, which is providing access control for me.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > By rewriting the IP headers of packets as they traverse routing devices. How does that prevent hosts on that other network from accessing hosts on your "private network"? Like, a packet addressed to one of the hosts on your "private network" arrives at your NAT gateway from the "other network". How does the NAT rewrite the IP headers, and how does that provide access control? > If you’re trying to say that all NAT devices are stateless firewalls, then your point is even more contrived than I first thought. Even that would not be contrived. If removing the NAT function does not change the security functions of a router, then the NAT obviously does not provide security, at best it implies the presence of certain security functions. But even that just isn't the case. > But I didn’t do that, I connected my home router to my ISP, and I connected my laptop to my home router, which is providing access control for me. Then that presumably is because your home router provides access control? What does that have to do with NAT, though?
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Because without NAT, none of the devices on my home network would be able to connect to any internet connected hosts. That is, unless I assigned internet routable addresses to their network interfaces. If I did that, I’d either have to install firewalls on my devices, or expose all services running on my devices to the internet. But I don’t have to do that, because my home router uses NAT to allow all devices on my home network to connect to the internet, without allowing other devices on the internet inbound access. If you have a point to make, then explain what it is. If you’re just gonna keep asking more contrived questions then I’ll presume you’re simply trolling.
        vardump 7y ago
        > If I did that, I’d either have to install firewalls on my devices, or expose all services running on my devices to the internet. Your router could still firewall them all the same. NAT or no NAT. You would not need to have a firewall on each individual device.
        7y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

Please explain how NAT without a stateful firewall provides security against what.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
It allows you to connect a private network to any other network, including the internet, without allowing hosts on that network access to hosts on the private network. It’s a form of access control. What is your justification for saying that access control measures are not security controls? That is so incredibly contrived.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > It allows you to connect a private network to any other network, including the internet, without allowing hosts on that network access to hosts on the private network. So, how does it do that? > What is your justification for saying that access control measures are not security controls? I am not saying that. It simply isn't an access control measure.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > So, how does it do that? By rewriting the IP headers of packets as they traverse routing devices. If you’re trying to say that all NAT devices are stateless firewalls, then your point is even more contrived than I first thought. > It simply isn't an access control measure. Then why can’t other internet connected devices connect to my internet connected laptop? If I’d connected my laptop directly to my ISP then they would be able to. But I didn’t do that, I connected my home router to my ISP, and I connected my laptop to my home router, which is providing access control for me.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > By rewriting the IP headers of packets as they traverse routing devices. How does that prevent hosts on that other network from accessing hosts on your "private network"? Like, a packet addressed to one of the hosts on your "private network" arrives at your NAT gateway from the "other network". How does the NAT rewrite the IP headers, and how does that provide access control? > If you’re trying to say that all NAT devices are stateless firewalls, then your point is even more contrived than I first thought. Even that would not be contrived. If removing the NAT function does not change the security functions of a router, then the NAT obviously does not provide security, at best it implies the presence of certain security functions. But even that just isn't the case. > But I didn’t do that, I connected my home router to my ISP, and I connected my laptop to my home router, which is providing access control for me. Then that presumably is because your home router provides access control? What does that have to do with NAT, though?
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Because without NAT, none of the devices on my home network would be able to connect to any internet connected hosts. That is, unless I assigned internet routable addresses to their network interfaces. If I did that, I’d either have to install firewalls on my devices, or expose all services running on my devices to the internet. But I don’t have to do that, because my home router uses NAT to allow all devices on my home network to connect to the internet, without allowing other devices on the internet inbound access. If you have a point to make, then explain what it is. If you’re just gonna keep asking more contrived questions then I’ll presume you’re simply trolling.
        vardump 7y ago
        > If I did that, I’d either have to install firewalls on my devices, or expose all services running on my devices to the internet. Your router could still firewall them all the same. NAT or no NAT. You would not need to have a firewall on each individual device.
        7y ago