🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1a3584e54aa22f3e989eab@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
Leythos  <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
:And the intent, if you had followed the start, what the NAT with no 
:forwarding would be used. Why would I post about how it could protect if 
:the intent was to forward all ports? 

We aren't mind-readers, Leythos, to know about your *intent*.
The words you actually -wrote- had no indication in them that
you understood about issues such as port forwarding or persistant
translations.

What you wrote was,

"Actually, if ISP's required users to install a router with NAT it would 
eliminate most of it. The hacks and worms could not infect new machines 
protected by NAT."

which simply is not true. There is nothing in any official definition
of 'NAT' that talks about duration of translations or restricting
translations to be usable to only returning traffic, and seeing as
Cisco has a patent on its "Adaptive Security Algorithm", many NAT
implimentations are overly generous on leaving open port translations...
leaving windows during which hacks and worms *will* be able to infect
new machines that are active on the 'net.
-- 
   I wrote a hack in microcode,
   with a goto on each line,
   it runs as fast as Superman,
   but not quite every time!                 -- Dave Touretzky and Don Libes