zlacker

>>mouse_+(OP)
Back in the days of blaster, if you were connected to a network with infected machines or had a public IP address because you were connected straight into your cable modem, you would get infected in the windows installer before it finished installing. Nowadays, everything is behind NAT and there aren't any infected Windows XP machines left on your local network, so that's not a problem anymore.

>>jmgao+rb4
For some reason whenever somebody suggests that NAT might have security benefits, there is usually some hysterical screeching about how that isn't true. Often seen in IPv6 discussions.

>>lupusr+cd4
> For some reason whenever somebody suggests that NAT might have security benefits, there is usually some hysterical screeching about how that isn't true.

It is not the address translation mechanism that does the protecting but rather the state tracking.

Until very recently I was with an ISP with IPv6, and things like my home printer had IPv6 addresses—but just because they were globally addressable did not mean that they were globally reachable.

>>throw0+6o5
Firewalls are a thing!