Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
130 Posts
0
3253
November 14th, 2003 19:00
routers & security
hello!
which is more secure?
NAT router automatically blocking unrecognized inbound TCP/UDP packets
-- or --
NAT router forwarding inbound TCP/UDP packets to a DMZ internal IP address (but no computer)
basically, both setups show as "stealth" at internet security tests, but which is more secure? or are they both not secure?
which is more secure?
NAT router automatically blocking unrecognized inbound TCP/UDP packets
-- or --
NAT router forwarding inbound TCP/UDP packets to a DMZ internal IP address (but no computer)
basically, both setups show as "stealth" at internet security tests, but which is more secure? or are they both not secure?
No Events found!
ryri
2 Intern
•
360 Posts
0
November 14th, 2003 20:00
if the router has a good firewall, i'd recommend the first, as then the router inspects them while blocking them and can warn you of intrusion attempts, etc.
If the router is just NAT without a firewall, the 2 methods are basically equivelent. The router isn't going to accidentally forward a packet to a client.
NAT is a pretty secure method of securing inbound connections (connections to your computer). However, anything, once on your computer, can get back out.
if you want a more detailed answer, post in the DSLreports security forum- there are a number of professionals who frequent it
www.dslreports.com/forums/security,1