Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[fergdawgster at gmail.com (Paul Ferguson)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:18 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:21:24 PST, Paul Ferguson said:
>
>> Try this at home, with/without NAT:
>>
>> 1. Buy a new PC with Windows installed
>> 2. Install all security patches needed since the OS was installed
>>
>> Without NAT, you're unpatched PC will get infected in less than 1
>> minute.
>
> What release of Windows?
>

Okay, okay -- you got me on that one. :-)

It used to be a much bigger problem when XP was shipping on PCs, but of
course that has changed.

I suppose there's a sliding-window principle (no pun intended) with regards
to the number of security vulnerabilities that are remotely exploitable and
the amount of time since the OS version was introduced, but you get my
point. :-)

- - ferg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)

wj8DBQFNLhwjq1pz9mNUZTMRAstGAKDhsX9AYZL6sGMIH5WWJM2GpilQNQCgm3TH
UQ26ucDTFifTB3eAQEZxj0M=
=Lh9p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
?Engineering Architecture for the Internet
?fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
?ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/