From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jesse W. Asher" <jasher1@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Natted IRC "inherently insecure"?
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 07:42:10 -0400
Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org
Message-ID: <3D243492.6090408@tampabay.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org>
Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.samba.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.samba.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.samba.org/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.samba.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.samba.org/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.samba.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/netfilter/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: netfilter@lists.samba.org


Someone recently indicated to me that they believed that natting IRC 
through a firewall was "inherently insecure" and I wanted to get 
opinions on that statement.  I guess, in my mind, it isn't any more or 
less secure than any other service natted through the firewall - it all 
depends on how comfortable you feel with the inherent security of the 
client/tool that you're using.

Comments?

-- 
Jesse W. Asher              jasher1@tampabay.rr.com