Re: NAT external/Public IP
- From: "Chris Barber" <cmbarber@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:24:33 -0700
PCI Compliance does not equal a secure network. But it brings you
closer than not being compliant.
On 10/25/07, Jason Alexander <jalexander@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
If its not a security risk then why is it a PCI requirement?
From: listbounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:listbounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
Sent: 25 October 2007 15:49
Subject: Re: NAT external/Public IP
On 2007-10-25 crazy frog crazy frog wrote:
On 24 Oct 2007 15:46:21 -0000, smarts_buy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:[...]
Would like know is ther any security concern to bring in
external/public IP with out NAT to inside of the enterprise network.
Is it any way more secure if we use NAT?
2)If you allow lots of machine to direct access the internet with
external ip they may pose a security risk.
How would that pose a risk that would not exist with NAT'ed machines?
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches becoming available."
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
- Prev by Date: RE: NAT external/Public IP
- Next by Date: RE: NAT external/Public IP
- Previous by thread: RE: NAT external/Public IP
- Next by thread: RE: NAT external/Public IP