That is totally incorrect, although it might make it marginally harder for amateurs, the attacker can bypass NAT by specifying the route for the packet to take. This is called source routing, now if you were to drop source routed packets at the firewall then I'm not sure what they could do, perhaps someone else could chime in with a comment on that?
>From: "Schuler, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Network Address Translation insecurities >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:17:04 -0700 > >I am looking for information regarding the insecurities and vulnerabilities >that exist in Network Address Translation. One of our admins feels that >because everything is NAT'd that there is no way anyone can break into the >systems that are NAT'd. I know that this is not a completely accurate >statement but need to find some research and documentation regarding this. >All our systems are behind at least one firewall so please don't advise me >to install a firewall as extra security as they are already there. I just >want to make sure that we are not overlooking serious vulnerabilities just >because the box is behind a NAT. In order to justify doing vulnerability >testing on some of our internal systems I need to demonstrate the >insecurities in NAT. > >Thanks in advance > >Jeff Schuler Chris Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator JM Associates "I have found the way, and the way is Perl." _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
