RE: NAT external/Public IP

Looks like a requirement?

<snip>1.5 Implement IP masquerading to prevent internal addresses from being 
translated and revealed on the Internet. Use technologies that implement RFC 
1918 address space, such as port address translation (PAT) or network address 
translation (NAT).<snip>

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Furman [mailto:ericfurman@fastmail.net] 
Sent: 25 October 2007 18:13
To: Jason Alexander; Security Basics
Subject: RE: NAT external/Public IP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbounce@securityfocus.com 
> [mailto:listbounce@securityfocus.com]
> On Behalf Of Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> Sent: 25 October 2007 15:49
> To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: NAT external/Public IP
>
> On 2007-10-25 crazy frog crazy frog wrote:
> > On 24 Oct 2007 15:46:21 -0000, smarts_buy@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Would like know is ther any security concern to bring in 
> > > external/public IP with out NAT to inside of the enterprise network.
> > > Is it any way more secure if we use NAT?
> [...]
> > 2)If you allow lots of machine to direct access the internet with 
> > external ip they may pose a security risk.
>
> How would that pose a risk that would not exist with NAT'ed machines?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:28:13 +0100, "Jason Alexander"
<jalexander@plus.net> said:
>  If its not a security risk then why is it a PCI requirement?

If you are talking about Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard, 
there isn't one for NAT.