3 ms·
NAT doesn't ever provide security, only pretending to.
by xvilka 2y ago
NAT doesn't ever provide security, only pretending to.
- iso8859-1 2y agoWhy is there a difference in captcha exposure between IPv4 and IPv6 then? Maybe there is no actual security, but the people deploying these captchas seem to think there is a need to deploy them for IPv6 users.
- einsteinx2 2y agoI’ve seen this sentiment repeated over and over in this thread without a single explanation. Please explain how NAT on IPv4, as used in practice, does not increase security vs connecting machines each directly to a publicly accessible Internet address? I’m having a hard time understanding how this statement can possible be true.
- xvilka 2y agoHere is the very simple but practical explanation why: https://0day.work/an-example-why-nat-is-not-security/ https://0day.work/an-example-why-nat-is-not-security/ And more high-level explanation as well: https://www.f5.com/resources/white-papers/the-myth-of-network-address-translation-as-security https://www.f5.com/resources/white-papers/the-myth-of-networ...
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoThat's bullshit. "Security" is not a binary switch. NAT is a useful tool in your security toolbox when you want a more nuanced take than either "ban all ports" or "let every port flap open on the internets, #yolo".
- Dagger2 2y agoNAT is useless for that. Firewalls are the tool for blocking connections.