3 ms·

NAT isn't a security feature. It's forced on users when their ISP only allocates one IPv4 address per site.

• mindslight 5y ago
  NAT has been forced on users. But NAT is also a security feature. I'm not talking about the implicit stateful firewall that could just as well be explicitly deployed for a whole subnet. Rather I'm talking about hiding as much information as possible about devices on your network. If you have a /28 with an IP for each computer on your network, then surveillance companies can build separate profiles on your desktop, your laptop, your wife's laptop, your kid's laptop, etc. When they're all behind a single IP, then they lose those bits of information. Higher level protocols can leak much more information, but it's better to address the problem at every level rather than giving up.
  • DarylZero 5y ago
    That's a rather useless form of "security." It's not even going to be effective in preventing the machines running web browsers from being distinguishable, if that's a real concern.
    • mindslight 5y ago
      "Higher level protocols can leak much more information, but it's better to address the problem at every level rather than giving up."