Comment Re:Are you serious or just burning karma? (Score 1) 398
You gave an example of NAT in the case of public daemons, but what about NAT/Masquerading a network behind a single IP? You think you can access private IP's (10.x.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x, 192.168.x.x) without using a reverse connecting Trojan? There's inherent security in not being able to reach a host behind a NAT, without a single packet filter rule.
