4 ms·
It is, but mostly because popular operating systems have historically had poor application isolation and vulnerable services. My personal opinion is that havin
by api 12y ago
It is, but mostly because popular operating systems have historically had poor application isolation and vulnerable services.
My personal opinion is that having to have a firewall everywhere in front of everything is a hack that was put into place because of awful OS security, and will become less important as OS security improves.
- eli 12y agoAnd/or you just substitute a NAT that happens to also function like a firewall with a proper firewall. The router could do the same sort of filtering as NAT would entail, but not require a hacky NAT table.
- VLM 12y agoOr rephrased its not possible to implement "working" NAT without a stateful firewall, but the lack of NAT doesn't imply its impossible to deploy a stateful firewall. (It would be interesting to research where this "can't have a stateful FW without NAT" meme came from. It is VERY popular among everyone but network guys)