Dave T. wrote - > I feel compelled to quickly point out that NAT/masquerading is > _not_ a > security feature. What you're describing is a stateful firewall, > which > allows only inbound traffic which is related to outgoing requests. > This > is not in any way related to network address translation, which is > what > NAT/masquerading does. iptables can do both, but please don't > confuse > them, nor rely on NAT to protect you.
Of course you are correct, David. But we have been skirting the central issue. Glen seems to think that the responsibility for "safe internet sex" rests in Red Hat's hands. I come down on the other side and maintain that Red Hat has given us the tools, but it is our - the user's - responsibility to ensure that we do our part to keep everybody safe. For Glen to shirk this responsibility is simply irresponsible in this day and age. No offence meant, Glen, but we all have to do our part. It took me a while to get up to speed on iptables but it was well worth it. Jack _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
