FW: [sclug] Firewalls

[lug at assursys.co.uk]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Tom Dawes-Gamble wrote:

> tim wrote:
> 
> > 2. Could not seem to get the NAT working on ipcop. My local addresses
> > 192nnnnnn seemed to leak out into the net, which seemed good in some ways
> > in that sites thought my ip address was 192 etc, but bad in the fact that
> > I was not doing it deliberately and I am sure its not good generally.
> > 
> 
> Strange.  I would have thought that if your 192. adddress leaked
> out then the connection would fail since the remote end would not have a
> route to your 192.

I agree entirely. Of course, it's entirely possible that the Tim was
referring to, say, a website that uses a bit of Java(Script) to determine
the end-client's IP address. That won't be detected or NATted by any of the
NAT solutions I've come across...

> Tom.

Best Regards,
Alex.
-- 
Alex Butcher        Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK                        Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950                           <http://www.assursys.com/>