Re: Are you protected by NAT?
From: SysAdm (wjones@sitesmith.com)Date: 06/12/02
- Next message: Jason: "please recommend a firewall that supports 2 DSL lines"
- Previous message: Harry Krause: "Re: ZA and intermittent broadband cut-outs"
- In reply to: Larry W4CSC: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Next in thread: Harry Krause: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Reply: Harry Krause: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Reply: Larry W4CSC: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "SysAdm" <wjones@sitesmith.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
replies in-line
"Larry W4CSC" <spaminator@knology.net> wrote in message
news:3d0560bb.20615362@news.knology.net...
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:46:16 +0000 (UTC), "SysAdm"
> Ok, so go ahead and trash my computer on 192.168.0.3. I'll
> wait........
again, Im not talking about a private address - im talking about how we see
*you* from here - ie. we see the public side of the nat, not the private
side.
> True. But, of course, you are talking about an INTERNAL
> worm/virus/trojan opening a hole in the NAT and listening for a call
> through it from its script kiddie, right? The up-to-date virus
> scanner, mostly, eliminates this possibility. You are also talking
> about scripting. Scripting is UNINSTALLED on all systems, here.
> Which type of scripting are you talking about? .vbs....no host to run
> it on. Javascript?.....disabled and its dll deleted. We CAN, and do,
> live without scripting, here. The applications, etc., are scanned by
> Symantec. It updates daily.
totally wrong. Im not at all talking about internal exploits. As I said in
my original post, I was talking about remote exploits such as Cross-Server
Scripting or malicious applets. Either of these techniques require no
worm/virus/trojan to be local on your system. eg. goto www.digicrime.com
As for the rest of your mail, because *your* system may be as secure as you
can make it, does not mean that NAT is a secure feature. My point was that
NAT itself does not provide the security that some believe it to, and is
certainly not a singular fix to security dilemmas.
Now please stop asking us to "hack" a private address.
SysAdm
- Next message: Jason: "please recommend a firewall that supports 2 DSL lines"
- Previous message: Harry Krause: "Re: ZA and intermittent broadband cut-outs"
- In reply to: Larry W4CSC: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Next in thread: Harry Krause: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Reply: Harry Krause: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Reply: Larry W4CSC: "Re: Are you protected by NAT?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
