[mdlug-discuss] NAT != security, right?

[Aaron Kulkis]

Durant, Dean wrote:
> My point is, if you have a private IP space, 10.x.y.z, people cannot attack you directly on your IP.  
> 

And yet, in windows viruses have run rampant within the Department
of Defense's own severely-restricted access secret-level clearance
nets running in 10.x.y.z space.

NATting is not a security measure, for the same reason why
encrypted passwords are no longer stored in /etc/passwd.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org [mailto:mdlug-discuss-bounces at mdlug.org] On Behalf Of Garry Stahl
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:34 AM
> To: A place for members to discuss anything they want, subjects not appropriate for any of the other lists.
> Subject: Re: [mdlug-discuss] NAT != security, right?
> 
> Durant, Dean wrote:
>> Hello, in the "should we go to IPv6" debate, ordinary people, when you
>> tell them, everything will be connectable, ask, well, what about security?
>>
>> Then the NAT lovers come along and say, see, there's a good reason to
>> have NAT.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> 
> Is IPv6 any less secure than IPv4?
>