North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Security gain from NAT

  • From: Leigh Porter
  • Date: Mon Jun 04 15:28:09 2007

Jim Shankland wrote:
Owen DeLong <[email protected]> writes:
There's no security gain from not having real IPs on machines.
Any belief that there is results from a lack of understanding.

This is one of those assertions that gets repeated so often people are liable to start believing it's true :-).

*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?

Shall I do the experiment again where I set up a Linux box
at an RFC1918 address, behind a NAT device, publish the root
password of the Linux box and its RFC1918 address, and invite
all comers to prove me wrong by showing evidence that they've
successfully logged into the Linux box?  When I last did this,
I got a handful of emails, some quite snide, suggesting I was
some combination of ignorant, stupid, and reckless; the Linux
box for some reason remained unmolested.

Jim Shankland

Not so. NATing source addresses from multiple source hosts towards the Internet anonymises the source machines so they can not be 'looked at' individually.

Additionally, NATing services on separate machines behind a single NATed address anonymises the services behind a single address.

Also, it is good to control the Internet addressable devices on your network by putting them behind a NAT device. That way you have less devices to concern yourself about that are directly addressable when they most likely need not be. You can argue that you can do the same with a firewall and a default deny policy but it's a hell of a lot easier to sneak packets past a firewall when you have a directly addressable target behind it than when it's all anonymous because it's NATed and the real boxes are on RFC1918.

So really, those who do not think there is a security gain from NATing don't see the big picture.

Leigh Porter