Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!

From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.lan)
Date: 08/26/05 

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:52:54 GMT

In article <cssug1tg85b854jg9uv74undtnl56df7cg@news.easynews.com>,
CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com says...
> What is the difference if the S&M types (heh) get away with it? As far as
> the home user in concerned, a NAT router is *their* firewall. It restricts
> access somewhat.
>
> By your, and Duane's, strict definition of a firewall, a home user is
> rarely going to have one.

And why is that a bad thing - the only reason they call them Firewalls
is to that ignorant people will purchase them. In the days when they
first came out they called them CABLE/DSL ROUTERS, then, without any
change in the firmware or functions, about 6 months later, they started
packaging them as "Firewalls".... See the history here.... Poeple will
buy it if you sell it as some BUZZ word they think they need.

Don't get me wrong, I recommend NAT Routers to ALL home users with DSL
or Cable, and I was installing "LAN MODEMS" long before there ever was
DSL or CABLE service - LAN Modems are single unit boxes with a NAT
router and a modem and a 1 or more port HUB - 3COM use to make them and
they did great to protect Dial-Up users from inbound (as do the
Cable/DSL routers), but they were not and are not firewalls.

> Note, I do see your point and understand why you want a strict definition.
> So now maybe you see my point in not thinking it's all that important. For
> the good of the net, at least many home users are using *something*.

You seem to think I want a "stricter" definition when in reality, until
those lamers started calling NAT devices firewalls, it was always
understood that NAT does not make a device a firewall. It's those
supporters of NAT being a firewall that are "watering down" the
definition of what a Firewall is.

The real problem is that people think these devices ARE firewalls and
that they are getting the same protection that their company firewall
give them - even though they have no idea what kind of protection that
is.

If you don't object to a Yugo being called a Space Shuttle I can see why
you don't object to a NAT Router being called a Firewall. 

-- 
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Norton Internet Security 2005 Personal Firewall slows down Windows XP startup
    ... > have a router. ... that a NAT device will not protect the user from - namely the user. ... personal firewall application running on a computer can work very nicely ... they can and do offer an extra layer of protection. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: How to Put Checkpoint SecuRemote Behind NAT?
    ... There are far fewer than 25 nodes behind that firewall ... > NAT does *not* provide any kind of protection other than obfuscation. ... In the case of our network, ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Router & Firewall?
    ... NAT provides a fair amount of protection for the computers behind the ... router are invisible to the Internet. ... third-party firewall you will get ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: Firewall
    ... > A simple NAT box, for anyone using DSL or Cable, would be the perfect ... > offer inbound protection against uninvited intruders. ... I install a NAT box as a firewall because it ... Have a nice Christmas Leythos. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Router/ Firewall
    ... Do all wireless routers even cheap ones act as firewalls. ... With all due respect to anyone else, the routers use something called NAT, ... A firewall can tell the difference between HTTP and any other traffic over ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)