Isn't a lot of these nat "firewalls" befsx41 etc a pretty good firewall?you can't attack it because ports are only opened from the inside.So basically someone has to download something to a pc on the inside and then that software has to "phone home" so to speak to allow a connection through the firewall.sites like etc have nice tests to test the firewalls.How is this not a good firewall?I also run nortons antivirus on all my pc's and occasionally spybot and adaware. I have yet to be hacked or get a virus.IMO

NAT is NOT a natural firewall, a firewall is something that only permits access between networks based on rule sets defined by the user.The NAT box does little to block outbound, does little to block outbound by service, can't tell the difference between SMTP and HTTP on port 80, and does little more than what NAT was designed for.NAT is nothing like a firewall, it's only a fake firewall feeling used by marketing / sales types to sell something to the ignorant.Now, with that being said, a cheap NAT router is the starting point for most users on the Internet, in fact, it's the absolute least I would want anyone to have.

nat is a "natural" firewall?

May 19, 2005 23 Replies

Rate this thread:

Leythos 21 years ago

Please correct me any time you find a mistake, I learn from constructive corrective actions too.

My experience with large ISP units, not AOL (yuck), has been that they don't filter viruses and most of the ones I have experience with don't filter spam.

Of the ones that filter viruses, they tend to not catch much.

Of the ones that filter spam, most only catch about 30%.

This has been my experience in the US with ISP's that cover more than one City.

Vote

doubter 21 years ago

I know that RoadRunner filters viruses, as does Cox, Earthlink and AOL and perhaps Comcast. (Yes I know that citing AOL stretching the meaning of the term ISP!!) and I believe they also filter spam, albeit to varying degrees of effectiveness. I suspect that based on total number of users these ISPs represent a large percentage of the total in the US. Filtering and

*effective* filtering are two different things but any legal liability would be triggered by any filtering at all.

However, I was more concerned about the second part of your statement. I know of no legal action that an ISP would fear as a result of filtering*. It is this portion that I am asking you for more information about. What major ISPs are not filtering for fear of violating what statute?

Thanks!

*I am talking about email. Newsgroups are a different matter in that filtering there can jeopardize the common carrier exemption.

Vote

Leythos 21 years ago

Yea, tell that to all the noobs running Apache on unsecured Linux boxes or the others running IIS on their Windows XP Professional boxes that don't know they installed IIS :)

Vote

Leythos 21 years ago

If RR is filtering viruses, they are doing a poor job in our area, and also in several areas around the country.

There are many cases where "Filtering" or cleaning something is considered protecting the user, and if the user were to incur damage or if a kid were to be exposed to p*rn in a filtered newsgroup or from a filtered website, the ISP could be liable. If you talk to the legal departments of many IPS's, they are very careful about what they do so as to not get caught by that little issue.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required