Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:30:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance improvement for NAT in IPFIREWALL Message-ID: <20030702212709.M1913@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <3F036571.8030609@mac.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030702212709.M1913>