On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 21:27 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > I believe we are talking about the case where some engineer > fat-fingers a change and Roger's claim is that a stateful inspection > without NAT box will permit unintended traffic while a NAT box will > not.
Possibly restating Mark's point, but if fat fingers are allowed as a source of failure, impact is unlimited. > IOW, All of NAT's security comes from the fact that it requires a > state table, like stateful inspection. > Er - I think it's a deeper point I was making. To the extent that NAT offers security at all, that security comes as an *unintentional side effect* of the job it is actually designed to do. That is, the NAT device *does not care* about its "security" function. Regards, K. > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
