• AceBonobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 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
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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.

      • AceBonobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I didn’t mean prevent, just makes it harder by default. You can still open connections from within the NAT

        Edit: I do admit to failing at accessing my IPv6 PC from my IPv6 phone

        Edit2: apparently NAT is full of security bugs

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

          If your home router blocked incoming connections on IPv4 by default now, then it’s likely to continue doing so for IPv6. At least, I would hope so. The manufacturer did a bad job if otherwise.

          • AceBonobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I figure the mobile carrier was blocking incoming connections to my phone. This was a couple of years ago, things might have changed since then.

    • hank_and_deans@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, no. If remote hosts could not send traffic to hosts behind NAT almost nothing would work.

      The hacks employed to make NAT work make security worse, not better.

      • AceBonobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You’re talking about NAT traversal? We do have control over which we apps we run though?

        Edit: apparently NAT is full of bugs