On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:17:59 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>,
"D11@anywhere.com" <> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Most consumer routers are just fine as firewalls if you don't need to
> open any ports in them.
[snip]

Your statement is literally true, as far as it goes -- but running a router
that closes *all* ports would make for a pretty useless 'net connection
(translation: "*no* connection"). <~>

Beyond that, a router is *NOT* at all the same thing (or an adequate
substitute for) a proper firewall.

> This is true whether the router uses NAT or
> SPI technology.
[snip]

That's not an "either/or" proposition. A proper firewall uses *both* SPI
*and* NAT (and PAT, and some other "stuff", for that matter).

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -