On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 14:25, Hector E. Urtubia wrote:Depending on how lame the NAT box you are relying on is -- one could poison its ARP cache to hijack packets. I think one of the BSDs had an issue with ARP cache poisoning not to long ago that did exactly this. Aside from data-theft this would be good for DoSing a network.
Todd is right, NAT is not really a security measure, just a clever way to overcome the shortage of IPv4. This paper shows a technique to count the hosts behind a NAT.
http://www.research.att.com/~smb/papers/fnat.pdf
wow.. hadn't posted to the list in a while...
Hector lives!
Could someone describe an attack that could happen to a NAT, other than "it is bad, don't do it"? So far we can count how many hosts there are, but now what?
chris
_______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
