• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    It wasn’t designed for a security purpose in the first place. So turn the question around: why does NAT make a network more secure at all?

    The answer is that it doesn’t. Firewalls work fine without NAT. Better, in fact, because NAT itself is a complication firewalls have to deal with, and complications are the enemy of security. The benefits of obfuscating hosts behind the firewall is speculative and doesn’t outweigh other benefits of end to end addressing.

    • AceBonobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The main benefit of a NAT is that by default it prevents all external access to the hosts inside the network. Any port you have open is not accessible unless explicitly forwarded.

      This has a lot of security benefits. Regardless, everything you said is sounds true to me.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        You can get exactly the same benefit by blocking non-established/non-related connections on your firewall. NAT does nothing to help security.

        Edit: BTW–every time I see this response of “NAT can prevent external access”, I severely question the poster’s networking knowledge. Like to the level where I wonder how you manage to config a home router correctly. Or maybe it’s the way home routers present the interface that leads people to believe the two functions are intertwined when they aren’t.