NAT has no security benefits.
Just because that is repeated ad-nauseam doesn't make it true.
Of course NAT has security benefits: It acts basically as a "one-way" firewall, which is exactly what most people that don't run a server at home need.
Of course you could configure a IPv6-firewall the same way, but that would take several days and who has time for that?
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL IN ANY SENSE OF THE TERM. Also, why is anyone bothering to debate v4 vs v6 with people who think that NAT is a firewall, and that you have to "call AT&T and request IPv6"?
You must mean something like securID token dongles because RSA keys do not weight anything and you can put thousands of them on one single USB dongle.
Whoosh doesn't suffice.
Trying to decide whether or not I am surprised that someone carrying so much gear would not include condoms.
That's what the duct tape is for.
...nobody actually uses Windows Server 2012
And yet this is currently modded Score:3. Unreal.
A war usually solves that issue.
Isn't Iran hiding some crypto of math construction?