How is the scenario you describe different from session hijacking
irrespective of the presence of NAT?
Steve Riley (MCS) wrote:
> Some "security experts" claim that NAT could be used as a firewall (or
> let's say, some means of hiding the internal network). I have a question
> about that. The assumption is that no packets could be sent directly
> from the Internet to clients behind NAT. However, imagine this scenario
> and tell me whether it's feasible.
<snip>
--
~~~Michael Jinks, IB // Technical Entity // Saecos Corporation~~~~
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
