Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:20:40 -0600
David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Jul 25, 9:10 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
True, but they're in a league where the reason to use non-routable IP
addresses is to limit external access -- another, very valid, reason.
I don't think so. It's too easy for one machine somewhere to be
compromised, allowing someone to proxy to any internal address. You
can't let one compromise turn into hundreds anyway. I honestly think
this is one of the worst arguments for using non-routable addresses.
You're giving the argument for no machines to be externally visible at
all. If you've got to have outside access, only allow it to a few,
tightly controlled machines.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- References:
- 192.168 - why?
- From: Antonio Macchi
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Lew Pitcher
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: AZ Nomad
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Chris \"Saundo\" Saunderson
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: AZ Nomad
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: David Schwartz
- 192.168 - why?
- Prev by Date: Re: troubleshooting
- Next by Date: Re: troubleshooting
- Previous by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Next by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|