On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 [email protected] wrote: > >> That site will manage to chucklehead their config whether or not it's NAT'ed. > > True...but when they do it and all their important stuff is in 192.168.0/24, > you still can't reach it...and if they break NAT, at least their internet > breaks. i.e. they'll know its broken. When they change the default policy > on the firewall to Accept/Allow all, everything will still work...until all > their machines are infected with enough stuff to break them. > Nah... They'll chucklehead forward something to 135-139/TCP on the box with all the important stuff just fine. NAT won't save them from this.
>> Hmm... Linux has a firewall. MacOS has a firewall. Windows XP SP2 or later >> has a perfectly functional firewall out of the box, and earlier Windows had >> a firewall but it didn't do 'default deny inbound' out of the box. > > Linux can have a firewall. Not all distros default to having any rules. XP > can (if you want to call it that). I don't have any experience with MacOS. > Both my kids run Win2k (to support old software that doesn't run well/at all > post-2k). I doubt that's all that unusual. > And the rest of the world should pay for your kid's legacy requirements why? >> Are you *really* trying to suggest that a PC is not fit-for-purpose >> for that usage, and *requires* a NAT and other hand-holding? > > Here's an exercise. Wipe a PC. Put it on that cable modem with no firewall. > Install XP on it. See if you can get any service packs installed before the > box is infected. > 1. Yes, I can. I simply didn't put an IPv4 address on it. ;-) 2. I wouldn't hold XP up as the gold standard of hosts here. Owen
