Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] 3 Volunteers wanted - Draft: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets

On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Lee Howard wrote:

>  
>  
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:43 AM
> To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); opsec@ietf.org; v6ops v6ops WG (v6ops@ietf.org)
> Cc: Fernando Gont
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] 3 Volunteers wanted - Draft: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
>  
> -       1.0 please avoid all discussion about NAPT being ‘minimal/simple’ security, the days of scanning are over and have been replaced by malware download/email propagated
>  
>  
> This is demonstrably false, and I can send you logs of scanning attempts foiled by NAPT.  NAT is crap security, but it’s not zero security. 
> 

Heretic!

Actually, I'd go so far as to drop the "crap" from the above -- while it isn't "real" security (whatever that means) it has become cool to simply beat on the NAT. 

Yes, it's not awesome, but it *does* help prevent the secretary's desktop from getting owned quite as often. Yes, he should have it patched, yes it should be capable of protecting itself, yes, there should be a "real" security widget in front of it, but, well… 

W

> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

-- 
With Feudalism, it's your Count that votes.