> No, you cannot get a connection to the device.

...okay? I didn't say you can. I said that line in the marketing implies you can, as part of how it's wrong.

If that wrong line in the marketing is the strongest evidence for NAT being initially understood as a security feature, that's very weak evidence for the pile.

(If the way I worded things needs more clarification, let me try to elaborate. There is a way in which NAT would prevent the connection, but that aspect of NAT is not what the marketing sentence talked about. It incorrectly talked about a different aspect of NAT. While there could theoretically be a device that uses NAT for protection, this device uses the firewall for protection. Just like basically every other device that can do NAT.)