RE: [fw-wiz] Home Environment Cisco

From: hermit921 (hermit921_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 05/30/03

  • Next message: Randy Grimshaw: "Re: [fw-wiz] Benefit of firewall over NAT-only 'protected' network" 
    To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:28:51 -0700

    Given all this discussion, I have to ask about NAT. I have a small Netgear
    DSL router (using NAT) at home. I consider it a great firewall because it
    doesn't let in any packets at all when I run nmap scans from the
    outside. It syslogs to my unix machine. What more could I want in a
    firewall for a home environment?

    hermit921

    At 10:26 PM 5/29/2003 +0200, Ben Nagy wrote:
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com] On Behalf
    > > Of salgak@speakeasy.net
    > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:39 PM
    > > To: nathan.grandbois@cerdant.com; firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: Nathan [mailto:nathan.grandbois@cerdant.com]
    > > > He has a Solaris ultra 60, and two win98 workstations at
    > > > home he wants to be able to communicate, as well as have access to the
    > > > internet (NAT).
    >[deleted]
    > >
    > > Reminder: a 50-dollar router from BestBuy also includes a
    > > Firewall. A Cisco 1600 or 2500-series will not. And NAT is
    > > NOT a firewall.
    >
    >[deleted]
    >
    >I'm not going to run over the NAT / FW discussion again, I think my opinion
    >on the matter is pretty well documented in the archives, but I am more than
    >happy to use _dynamic_ NAT as a pretty effective security mechanism for home
    >users. I do normally back it up with ACLs anyway, but that's just out of
    >general principle.
    >
    >ben

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

  • Next message: Randy Grimshaw: "Re: [fw-wiz] Benefit of firewall over NAT-only 'protected' network"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Firewall/Router
      ... Leaving NAT on the DSL router and putting the firewall between it and the ... I assumed it was because the server had the ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: home network behind NAT and firewall ?
      ... >> real Firewall appliance with more than 20 systems at any given time. ... >> firewall provides for the ability to assign both public (not nat) and ... that would reset the router and allow remote control - it was noted ... >> LAN inside their network and it would never have to reach the ISP's ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: NAT vs. True Firewalls
      ... not just mean packet filter. ... A firewall can be made up of one or more ... components that can block or filter protocol traffic between two networks. ... So a NAT can be as much part of a firewall implementation as the ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: 56k dial up on laptop 802.11G ?
      ... NAT is not FW software. ... > firewall is literally anything that defends your network against ... >>By comparing the way NAT functions between two networks, ... >>And I consider the FW appliance to out class the packet filtering NAT ...
      (alt.internet.wireless)
    • Re: do i need a new router
      ... Standard SBS ... > uses IPSec, NAT and port forwarding, Premium SBS includes all that plus ... I've never had a firewall or an appliance ... public connection and always tucked them ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)