IPv6 Security Myth #3: No IPv6 NAT Means Less Security
We’re back again with part 3 in this 10 part series that seeks to bust 10 of the most common IPv6 security myths. Today’s myth is a doozy. This is the only myth on our list that I have seen folks raise their voices over. For whatever reason, Network Address Translation (NAT) seems to be a polarizing force in the networking world. It also plays a role in differentiating IPv4 from IPv6.
In IPv4, NAT (technically NAT overload or NAPT) is required for multiplexing due to the shortage of addresses. In IPv6 we have 340 Trillion, Trillion, Trillion addresses available, and therefor no need for address sharing. This means that the NAT we have in IPv4 is not part of our IPv6 world. Some people keep saying this is a security issue, which brings us to today’s myth.
Myth: No IPv6 NAT Means Less Security
Reality: Stateful Firewalls Provide Security (Not NAT)
We can argue the merits of NAT, the end-to-end principle, and security until we’re blue in the face – and many have – but the reality is that NAT does not provide any real network security. Worse yet, it actually prevents many security measures and provides an additional attack surface for your network.
The cause for much of this confusion stems from the fact that NAT requires state. By “state” I mean that the NAT device must remember which internal addresses to swap for which external addresses, and vice verse. This in turn means that any device performing NAT overload must act as a stateful firewall.
A stateful firewall uses state to determine which packets to allow into the network. That is, it remembers when you send packets out and to whom so that it can allow packets back in only from those hosts with which you initiated communication. In other words, a stateful firewall stops all incoming traffic unless it is a reply to valid traffic that you sent.
While the NAT may provide a bit of obfuscation, by hiding your internal addresses, it is really this stateful firewall function that protects your network from unwanted intrusion.
What’s worse than giving NAT credit for the work of our trusty stateful firewall? NAT making you less secure. That obfuscation trait of NAT we mentioned earlier actually prevents IPsec, DNSSEC, Geolocation, and other applications – many of which are designed to provide security – from working.
NAT also introduces its own set of security flaws. NAT devices stand in front of your network as a single point of failure. All NAT’ed packets must terminate on the NAT device and get a new IP header with their new, translated, address. This means that every flow into and out of a NAT’ed network is wholly dependant on the NAT device, and consumes resources on the NAT device. This opens these devises up to many DoS attacks. An attacker can consume available connection state, available addresses or ports, or simply overload the CPU with ALG (Application Layer Gateway) or other requests.
The bottom line is that NAT is not a security feature and removing NAT from your network will NOT make it less secure. In fact, it may actually increase your overall security.
Can’t wait for the next IPv6 Security Myths post? Not to worry, you can check out tons of great IPv6 resources right now!
This post also appears on the Deploy360 blog.