|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Stephen Stuart wrote: > Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:15:59 -0800 > From: Stephen Stuart <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? > > > Only that private addressing helps ensure that your machines don't > have access to the Internet. If you've set up a network where there is > truly no packet path to the Internet such that it wouldn't matter if > your back-end network was numbered in RFC1918 space or not, then it > becomes unlikely that the network in question will be compromised *by > an attacker arriving via the Internet*, and your security does not > depend on RFC1918 addressing. You will have someone walking up to a > switch and plugging in to consider (but that's more a facility > security issue). RFC1918 gives you a place to number hosts without > conflicting with "public" address space, that's all. > Using RFC1918 space also gets you an IP range where the outside world has no route to it -- Sorry, but no packets are not getting there, ergo no way to hack. Assuming various things that should be standard procedure -- dynamic NAT as opposed to static, blocking source routing, etc. At that point, just by use of simple routing, you've effectively eliminated 100% of attacks from the outside, and you only have to worry about inside. The front door is secure, now work on the back door. >
|