Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:32:39 PDT, Jim Shankland said:
*No* security gain? No protection against port scans from Bucharest? No protection for a machine that is used in practice only on the local, office LAN? Or to access a single, corporate Web site?
Nope. Zip. Zero. Ziltch. Nothing over and above what a good properly configured stateful *non*-NAT firewall should be doing for you already.
Thanks for the clarification, Owen and Valdis. We are, of course, 100% in agreement that it is stateful inspection that provides (a measure of) security, and that stateful inspection can be had without NAT. But NAT *requires* stateful inspection; and the many-to-one, port translating NAT in common use all but requires affirmative steps to be taken to relay inbound connections to a designated, internal host -- the default ends up being to drop them. All this can be done without NAT, but with NAT you get it "for free". I can't pass over Valdis's statement that a "good properly configured stateful firewall should be doing [this] already" without noting that on today's Internet, the gap between "should" and "is" is often large. If what you meant to say is that NAT provides no security benefits that can't also be provided by other means, then I completely agree. Jim Shankland