I have seen the scenario where clients insist on doing NAT at the perimeter
router. This leads to the configuration of the firewall to be configured
with private IP addresses on 'external' and 'internal' interfaces. The end
result is no way to log or monitor from the firewall any access attempts
from public ip address sources. The client insists that this is due to the
fact that no one can get through the NAT of the router. I think all that
has happened is the masquerading of intrusion attempts from the NAT of the
router. Anyone have any comments regarding the placement of the NAT at the
router on security vs. logging? Any fresh viewpoints would be welcome.
Patrick Kelly
CMS Information Services, Inc.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
