Re: NATs are NOT Firewalls

To: <Tomson_Eric at Yahoo.fr>
Subject: Re: NATs are NOT Firewalls
From: S Woodside <sbwoodside at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:55:49 -0400
Cc: <ietf at ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <008201c335e8$ea19f3c0$6f00a8c0@tomson.be>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Tomson Eric ((Yahoo.fr)) wrote:

Now, the fact that masking the internal addresses to the external world - so that internal hosts can initiate traffic to the outside, but no external host can initiate traffic to the inside - brings some basic security, is an interesting corollary, but not the primary objective of a NAT.


Is this just security through obscurity, or something better?

simon


--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: NATs are NOT Firewalls
  - From: Valdis . Kletnieks

References:
- NATs are NOT Firewalls
  - From: Tomson Eric $Yahoo.fr$

Prev by Date: Re: myth of the great transition
Next by Date: RE: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Previous by thread: NATs are NOT Firewalls
Next by thread: Re: NATs are NOT Firewalls
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: NATs are NOT Firewalls

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.