Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:10:22 +0100
David Schwartz wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:08 am, Maxwell Lol <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sounds like a real security risk to me. That says I can send
packets to a router/firewall with the destination being the
inside address, and it will respond.
Since you can send packets to that router/firewall with the
destination being the outside address much more easily, why
would you think this matters?
I think, he's fallen for the misconception, that NAT and private
address ranges are means of security. Tell the people about
IPv6, and they'll respond in the same way.
Wolfgang Draxinger
--
E-Mail address works, Jabber: hexarith@xxxxxxxxxx, ICQ: 134682867
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- References:
- restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Rick Jones
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Maxwell Lol
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Prev by Date: Re: BIND -- can't register nameserver
- Next by Date: Re: BIND -- can't register nameserver
- Previous by thread: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Next by thread: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
