• @orangeboats@lemmy.world
    1•6 months ago

    Oh come on, are you seriously suggesting that default-deny stateful firewall is not the norm??

    Holy. Fucking. Shit. Indeed.

    You keep on suggesting to me that you really have no idea how networking works. (Which is par on course for people thinking NAT == security, but I digress)

    Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall. If it supports NAT, it must support stateful firewalling. To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade. Disregarding routers, even your computer whether Linux (netfilter) or Windows (Windows Firewall) comes built-in with a stateful firewall.

    • @Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•6 months ago

      Having a NAT on a consumer router is indeed the norm. I don’t even see how you could say it is not.

      I never said NAT = security. As a matter of fact, I even said

      It was not designed for security but coincidentally blah blah

      But hey, strawmanning didn’t stop your original comment to me either, so why stop there?

      Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall.

      I never even implied the opposite.

      To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade.

      Right, because masquerade is NAT…specifically Source NAT.

      I’m just going to go ahead an unsubscribe from this conversation.

      • @orangeboats@lemmy.world
        1•6 months ago

        Were I really strawmanning you? Is “I never even implied the opposite” really true? Quote:

        So, really, you were “correcting” me for you and your specific setup

        Yeah, my “specific setup”… which can be found in virtually all routers today.