Re: I am protected?
chris_at_nospam.com
Date: 12/05/04
- Previous message: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- In reply to: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- Next in thread: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- Reply: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- Reply: phn_at_icke-reklam.ipsec.nu: "Re: I am protected?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:36:11 GMT
On 4 Dec 2004 19:25:25 -0600, Chuck <none@example.net> wrote:
>On 4 Dec 2004 03:58:55 GMT, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>
>>In article <9i72r0tfb2cjeun36od6g2ud73pirla4kl@4ax.com>,
>>Chuck <none@example.net> wrote:
>>:>Of course, your ADSL modem may in fact already be donig NAT for you.
>>
>>:Correct. If you have a combined modem / NAT router, then you are protected from
>>:hostile incoming network traffic.
>>
>>
>>With NAT, you are *partly* protected, with the extent of the protection
>>depending greatly on the degree to which the device is not just NAT'ing
>>but also deliberately acting as a firewall.
>
>Walter,
>
>You are close. I would rephrase slightly:
Agreed.
Also, some of these NAT routers support ssdp which I consider to be a
bad thing. It means the XP clients can reconfig the router. For
example XP upon discovering such a router tries to punch holes for IM.
-Chris
- Previous message: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- In reply to: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- Next in thread: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- Reply: Chuck: "Re: I am protected?"
- Reply: phn_at_icke-reklam.ipsec.nu: "Re: I am protected?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|