Linksys Firewall/router

[Glenn Crocker]

NAT doesn't add the kind of security a firewall does.  Yeah, it's nice, but
it's like using the "rhythm method" of birth control.  Maybe it'll work,
probably it won't.

Here's a nice article about why NAT isn't a real security solution:

http://www.sans.org/infosecFAQ/firewall/net_add2.htm

-glenn

Glenn Crocker
Netmud   http://www.netmud.com
913-451-7785, glenn at netmud.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hutchins [mailto:hutchins at opus1.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:41 PM
> To: bill at billclark.net; 'KCLUG List'
> Subject: Re: Linksys Firewall/router
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Clark" <bill at billclark.net>
>
> > As for the genius that said you don't need to block ports if
> your running
> > NAT...
>
> That would be me.  I'd love to try your proposed experiment, but
> as you say
> there's no such thing as "perfectly secure" and I don't really
> have time to
> fix it today if you out-clever me.  Some day when I've got time
> to mess with
> it, and preferably monitor the process from my end too, maybe we
> can give it
> a try.
>
> I presume we're talking about blocking the ports using the firewall rules
> here - my systems are usually secured as if they were exposed anyway, and
> don't have promiscuously open ports that could be reached even if
> you could
> get to them through the firewall.  That's really more what I'm thinking of
> when I say you don't have to block.