> > A NAT'd cell phone
> > wont, cant ever, respond to an unsolicited connection request.
>
> A NAT is not a firewall.
>
> A firewall is not a NAT.
>
> Some vendors bundle firewall functionality with NAT functionality, just as
> some vendors bundle SNA with IP.
>
> Please stop perpetuating the my
> A NAT'd cell phone
> wont, cant ever, respond to an unsolicited connection request.
A NAT is not a firewall.
A firewall is not a NAT.
Some vendors bundle firewall functionality with NAT functionality, just as
some vendors bundle SNA with IP.
Please stop perpetuating the myth that a NAT is a
On Thu, 02 May 2002 11:32:48 PDT, "Mansey, Jon" said:
> As I said, in a NAT'd scenario the IP stack will never see an unsolicited
> request and hence not respond to it.
>
> The phone side of course will ring when called. Duh.
That's the *point*.
You hand the phone a trojan/virus/whatever when
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 2. mája 2002 20:00
> To: Mansey, Jon
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
>
>
> Who says a NATed host can not be a zombie?
rse will ring when called. Duh.
GPRS <> VoIP (yet)
Jm
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:26 AM
> To: Mansey, Jon
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
Perhaps I should s/zombie/reflector in my orginal post.
Jm
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Mansey, Jon
> Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
quests. A NAT'd cell phone
wont, cant ever, respond to an unsolicited connection request.
jm
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: Mansey, Jon
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE:
--On Thursday, May 2, 2002 10:30 -0700 "Mansey, Jon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that NAT is a
> great way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want to imagine what the
> billing/credit issues would be like if your always-on phone with
gt;
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
> To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that NAT is a great
> way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want to imagine what the
> billing/credit issues would be like
Yo Jon!
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Mansey, Jon wrote:
> To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that NAT is a great
> way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want to imagine what the
> billing/credit issues would be like if your always-on phone with a real IP
> is used as a zombie in
Sent: 2. mája 2002 19:31
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
>
> To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that
> NAT is a great way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want
> to imagine what the billing/c
To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that NAT is a great
way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want to imagine what the
billing/credit issues would be like if your always-on phone with a real IP
is used as a zombie in a DDOS. "Hey I didn't use all that traffic last
month...
12 matches
Mail list logo
