logoalt Hacker News

layman51today at 1:03 AM1 replyview on HN

Maybe it’s because I don’t consider myself a super technical person, but I find it so hard to parse the title of this blog post. When I first read it, I thought it was saying something like, “The protocol is not insecure, and the reason is that it lacks a NAT”. However, after reading the blog post, it seems like it is intending a different meaning. The meaning I think is, “the protocol is not insecure just because it lacks NAT”.


Replies

Gigachadtoday at 1:10 AM

The lack of NAT has no bearing on security. Despite an old mistaken belief.

show 1 reply