Re: IPv6 support in firewalls

["Paul D. Robertson" <paul () compuwar net>]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Behm, Jeffrey L. wrote:

> Then the game is already lost, on the home computing front,
> and the implication of this thread is that there will be even
> more devices at home connected to the Internet in the future
> ("PC, mobile phone, fridge, coffee machine").  Not a pretty
> outlook.

Yes, and *anyone* who's done any sampling of home PCs recently will 
understand that.  I can't remember the last time I saw a clean MS-based 
home system.

> At least with a NAT device (at this point in Internet history),
> the home-user has a better chance of remaining "un-hacked"
> than they would if they hooked their PC directly up to the
> Internet w/o such a device.

Can you substantiate that?  Because the vectors I'm seeing on home PCs 
aren't traditional network worm vectors, they're Web and E-mail-based 
malcode that gets in regardless of any NAT.  All the network stuff I'm 
seeing is connecting out (IRC, HTTP.)

Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal opinions
paul () compuwar net       which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
             http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr/

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards