Hacker News Reader

You should read my other comments on this post. I've attempted, multiple times (but apparently without much success) to make the point that NAT is not a security feature because it does not, without a firewall, protect against an attacker.

You don't need a qualifier like "on the WAN subnet". It just doesn't do anything to protect you from inbound connections at all.

View on HN

I think you're not technically wrong, but you're defining NAT differently than the majority of people you're arguing with (those who assume NAT also implies a firewall blocking inbound connections), and the remaining minority (the "on the WAN subnet" crowd) are dismissing outright the idea as a reasonable attack vector that an attacker close enough to be able to send packets destined for non-internet routable addresses to your router.

Is the latter something that was/is actively exploited?

There's an implicit trust of ISPs in the comments that I find concerning

Reply on news.ycombinator.com