3 ms·
I’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 incr
by einsteinx2 2y ago
I’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.