Lee at asgard.org
Tue Mar 25 13:36:36 UTC 2014
On 3/24/14 2:38 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org> wrote:
>> On 3/24/14 1:37 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>That would be one of those "details" on which smart people disagree.
>>>In this case, I think you're wrong. Modern NAT superseded the
>>>transparent proxies and bastion hosts of the '90s because it does the
>>>same security job a little more smoothly. And proxies WERE designed to
>>>act as a security feature.
>> What kinds of devices are we talking about here? Are we talking about
>> default NAT on a home network router, or an enterprise-level NAT
>> on a firewall?
>I don't see NAT as a deployment issue for residential networks. Most
>folks just hook their computer up to whatever CPE the vendor sends
>them without any further attention.
>> If we're talking about an enterprise firewall, then I don't
>> understand--we're talking about a firewall. If it implements a
>> NAT in addition to a stateful firewall, then it's implementing the same
>> function twice. But, hey, it's your network, if
>> security-through-obscurity is one of your defense in depth layers,
>"Obscurity" offers one or more defense layers. If you disagree, post
>your passwords here.
One that is largely mocked by security professionals. However, ULA can do
>Unaddressibility is a second defense layer.
I offered ULA+NPT66. I don't recommend it, but it has been described as
working, and provides addresses which are not globally reachable.
>Stateful firewalling is a third.
More information about the NANOG