Arguing against using public IP space

Tue Nov 15 14:17:20 UTC 2011

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:57:32 GMT, Leigh Porter said:

> Well this is not quite true, is it.. If your firewall is not working and you
> have private space internally then you are a lot better off then if you have
> public space internally! So if your firewall is not working then having private
> space on one side is a hell of a lot more secure!

By the same token, if your firewall fails closed rather than fails open, you're
more secure.

And this is totally overlooking the fact that the vast majority of *actual*
attacks these days are web-based drive-bys and similar things that most
firewalls are configured to pass through.  Think about it - if a NAT'ed
firewall provides any real protection against real attacks, why are there still
so many zombied systems out there?  I mean, Windows Firewall has been shipping
with inbound "default deny" since XP SP2 or so. How many years ago was that?
And what *real* security over and above that host-based firewall are you
getting from that appliance?

Or as Dr Phil would say "FIrewalls - how is that working out for you?"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111115/b8912b51/attachment.sig>