4 ms·
Please DO NOT rely on a NAT for any sort of security. "Getting around" a NAT is so common today that Wikipedia even has a fairly comprehensive article dedicated
by mmh0000 5y ago
Please DO NOT rely on a NAT for any sort of security. "Getting around" a NAT is so common today that Wikipedia even has a fairly comprehensive article dedicated to it [0].
Whether IPv4 or IPv6 does not negate the need for a firewall at the ingress/egress.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal
- azdle 5y agoWouldn't those all apply to a simple stateful firewall too? I mean, clearly OP doesn't need to worry about the lack of NAT, but not having gone through all of the things listed on that list, I would assume that they all require an active participant behind the NAT/firewall, and would still be required for just a plain old stateful firewall (assuming you don't have the ports open) when you want to communicate with some other endpoint behind another firewall.
- lmm 5y ago> Wouldn't those all apply to a simple stateful firewall too? Not necessarily. I mean if someone's setup really is "just NAT" then you can just send packets with the addresses of their internal hosts to their router and it will route them.