Re:By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
by Symbiote on Monday June 26, 2017 @02:01PM
(#14638890)
> behind NAT/firewalls
These are two separate things.
There is no security difference between "route port 80 of one of our public IPs through to my NATted address" and "open port 80 for my public address".
The public addresses are easier to administrate, troubleshoot, log, etc.
For all of the cool things I got to do (troubleshoot a breakin at the South Pole, send the RIAA a DMCA takedown notice when they stole our content (absolutely the highlight of my career), etc.), we spent the vast majority of our time on nonsense. We processed dumb breakins by the hundreds, had to enforce DMCA takedowns, and the like.
I'm also all for innovation and giving people the freedom to deploy services and innovate, but I would have killed to deploy all IPs by default behind NAT/firewalls and work with researchers to help them understand their responsibilities before giving them public IPs.