Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Once an unreachable host magically got infected, it scanned the entire IP address space but hey, it was worse because some hosts were in a predefined part.

NAT is bad because somehow magically a machine with an unroutable address can become routable. Because magically UPnP forwards every protocol in existence, not only a select group of programs that explicitly support it. And of course a connection opening up a theoretical hole to a specified host is just as bad (actually worse!) as opening it up to the whole internet.

Yet all routers have the right defaults and nobody ever makes a mistake. Oh and there’s so many addresses it’s so obscure it’s secure, and noone would guess to scan one’s own subnet in the absence of NAT.

These arguments are really grasping for straws, mostly nonsensical and the rest describes attacks so impractical they are pretty much impossible to carry out and are so much harder than simply sending a thousand emails with a link to an executable that pretty much nobody ever bothers.

Note I never said that IPv6 is worse, I said that NAT has relevant advantages and mostly irrelevant disadvantages. I really don’t care ftp doesn’t work with NAT.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: