Jump to content



Photo

How NSA access was built into Windows

nsa back door windows

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#76 dvb2000

dvb2000

    Neowinian

  • 1,440 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 07

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:29

Are you kidding me? NAT doesn't block incoming by choice, its just technically how it works. I could lecture you for a day about NAT translation tables if you want and all the different types of NAT. The fact of the matter is, NAT only allows incoming connections if they're initialised by the client on the end. There is P2P protocols etc, but then again, initialised by the client.

 

What are you on about? NAT by design DOES block incoming connections, but only because by design it is sharing your internet connection to multiple devices via a private network with private IP addresses.

 

NAT allows incoming connections by any number of mechanisms, including uPNP and port forwarding. They do not need to be initiated by the client end.




#77 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:40

What are you on about? NAT by design DOES block incoming connections, but only because by design it is sharing your internet connection to multiple devices via a private network with private IP addresses.

 

NAT allows incoming connections by any number of mechanisms, including uPNP and port forwarding. They do not need to be initiated by the client end.

The ideology of blocking incoming connections is a negative and takes away the fundamental point of the internet, an all connected network. It wasn't by design, it is a downfall which was created by the mechanism of saving IP space, but that needed to be completed as they're no IPv4's left in the world. You could not request any IPv4 blocks from organisations like ISOC since 2011, they're all out. You fell into the common misconception that the blocking of incoming connections was a design feature of NAT to boost security on the internal networks. Its actually the opposite, its a side-effect as I've said. It takes away the fundamental point of the internet, something IPv6 would restore. 

 

My days, I write pages of text explaining why it needs to initalised by the internal host and people just don't read it then claim the same point again. Read my posts. UPnP is sent from an internal host. I can't send a UPnP packet to a public IP address, it'll tell me to get lost.

 

A real example, your Xbox tells your home router that its using port 3074 and to send any traffic on that port to its IP address. Xbox Live doesn't tell your router. See what I mean? 



#78 The_Observer

The_Observer

    Apples, Bananas, Rhinoceros!

  • 3,882 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 05
  • Location: New Zealand
  • OS: OS X 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone5s

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:42

I Remember when Windows 95 came out and this was on the internet back them, There has never been any real proof of this. But dont get me wrong i think it could be in there but one would think by now something out there would see something and expose Microsoft.