Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!
From: Nicky (hackeras_at_gmail.com)
Date: 08/24/05
- Next message: Volker Birk: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Volker Birk: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- In reply to: Volker Birk: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Next in thread: Shawn K. Quinn: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 24 Aug 2005 06:35:31 -0700
Volker Birk wrote:
> Nicky <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And how can router be crashed? By what way?
>
> If it does NAT/masquerading, a DoS attack is very easy from inside. Just
> exploit the maximum size of the NAT table by flooding with packages opening
> a huge number of connections.
Yes but in order to crash it this way you must attack it from the
inside.
But how youy will be able to do that from the inside?
Yiu must somwhow infect an internal host to do that and that means you
have to pass from the router first somehow.
And also i would like to ask if a router gets crushes what does that
mean?
Thats it stops responding and therefore stop blocking unsolicited
inbound connections so one could slip in?
- Next message: Volker Birk: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Volker Birk: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- In reply to: Volker Birk: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Next in thread: Shawn K. Quinn: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|