From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 2 17:30:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9E737B401 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 998DB43FF3 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:30:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 7908 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2003 00:30:33 -0000 Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2003 00:30:33 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:30:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Chuck Swiger In-Reply-To: <3F036571.8030609@mac.com> Message-ID: <20030702212709.M1913@odysseus.silby.com> References: <3F0316DE.3040301@tenebras.com> <20030702183838.GB4179@pit.databus.com> <3F0327FE.3030609@tenebras.com> <3F0331EE.6020707@mac.com> <3F0350C7.7010009@tenebras.com> <3F036571.8030609@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance improvement for NAT in IPFIREWALL X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:30:36 -0000 On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Chuck Swiger wrote: > By itself, NAT provides no benefit to security, and some implementations > actually reduce the security of the system compared with not running NAT. Let > me pull out a couple of quotes from various people: Please explain this point more. Say I have 1000 win 9x boxes connected to the internet with routable IPs and no firewall. How will placing them behind a NAT box make them less secure? Mike "Silby" Silbersack