Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> writes: >>> > It's probably not the best thing, but I depend on the NAT gateway for >>> > a lot of my security--with IPv6, will I still be able to do that? >>> >>> NAT and security do not match. You better put a good firewall and/or >>> IPS system in between ;-)
With IPv6 it is not an issue. It's not like IPv6 is actually routable across the internet. :-> >> Hmm, I need to knock on some wood--wait, I can knock on my head--that is >> about the same ;-) So far, NAT seemingly has provided pretty good >> security for me. > > :-) > > Yes, most of us -wrongly- believe that our NATed router is like a wall > between our computers and the dangerous external web (because indeed it > is hidding somehow) but this is not a security measure per se but > security by obfuscation: that we can't see it does not mean we can't > reach it. There can be still holes in router's firmware or bad configured > DSL devices that may expose the user regardless NATed or not ;-) OK, you put a new XP box directly on the internet and I'll put one behind a NAT router box. Do you wish to take bets on who can update before getting owned? NAT is a firewall. Maybe not a great one. But it does function as such. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5zzcah9....@emmy.axel.nom
