3 ms·
NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer rout
by withinboredom 4y ago
NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer routers generally set up NAT, I can see why you'd say that (despite there being standard ways to forward ports without any user intervention such as uPnP). There's nothing "secure" about NAT.
- collsni 4y agoI think the argument is about the address origin being overwritten vs forwarded to the destination. Is about device tracking and privacy
- withinboredom 4y agoI don't think that works. A router should decrement the TTL of the frame, and thus showing that there is a router between the host device. The linux default is 64 and windows is 128 IIRC, so you can easily deduce the OS just from looking at the TTL. This can tell you whether an ipv4 device is directly connected. From there, you just need to look at IP ID in the packet and figure out which ones are increasing independently to determine individual devices behind the NAT. So, no. NAT gives you 0 privacy.
- ngetchell 4y agoNot having client devices accessable via unique IPs is a great security feature. Certainly an unintended side effect but NAT is what is dropping unwelcomed incoming traffic on consumer devices.
- withinboredom 4y agoYou mean a firewall? NAT doesn’t have to drop any packets. It can translate unknown flows into broadcast packets, forward them to a set ip (dmz), or drop them. NAT is not a firewall, even if some configurations make it kinda sorta, if you squint, look like one.