[Full-Disclosure] Re: NAT router inbound network traffic subversion

I think the answers that I received in response to my query are somewhat
obvious -- yes -- but neither answered my question!  Morning Wood's
analysis was brilliant as ever, like always ;-P

"atacker now can do a he wishes to the rest of your network ( GAME
OVER )"

Ummm...okay.  The problem with you was this statement:

"NAT client browses web..."

HOW IS THIS NOT USER INTERACTION?!?!?  I asked if there is a computer on
the internal network that doesn't do anything -- that means SENDING NO
PACKETS to the router -- if an attacker can get EVEN ONE PACKET inside:
then they will prove everyone wrong, right?  If one packet can get
through, it can be considered a rogue packet that should not have
entered the internal network destined for a particular host -- or better
yet -- an internal broadcast address going to all hosts.

Some say getting these rogue packets into the network is "impossible".
That is the reason for my question.  I like to think that most problems
are "intractable", but not "impossible".  Can anyone prove me wrong?
Can someone push a rogue packet behind a router with no client
interaction???  This is my chautauqua...
-- 
Kristian Hermansen <khermansen@ht-technology.com>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html