Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pwnat – Autonomous Nat Traversal (2010)

samy.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Pwnat – Autonomous Nat Traversal (2010)

#41

Post by [deleted] »

armitron wrote: post #39
testvox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on a large corporate network right now and I get responses back from `ping www.google.com`. But also this technique doesn't depend on ICMP that is just what the example happens to use. Pwnat itself uses only UDP for outgoing requests.

ICMP is used by the server in order to find out the IP of the client. Then they switch to UDP. This method does not work without ICMP. Now, of course you can use outgoing UDP in probe fashion instead of ICMP, but that's again most probably blocked.

[deleted]

Re: Pwnat – Autonomous Nat Traversal (2010)

#42

Post by api »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #38
adev_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without a gigantic investment in hardware to support an over-engineered replacement protocol. Bullshit. Almost every piece of hardware sold since 15 years is compatible IPv6. There is no need of any "expensive hardware". The main reason that IPV6 never lift off is the lack of interest, lazyness and no will for configuration.

NAT is older than 15 years though. And > lack of interest, lazyness and no will for configuration Is a symptom of v6 being over-engineered.

IPv6 is really just IPv4 with more address space. There are a bunch of extensions that nobody uses, sure, but nobody uses them and they can be safely ignored in most cases.

The only other significant change from V4 to V6 is the use of multicast instead of dumb broadcast for V6's equivalent of ARP on LANs. That's an improvement as it allows smart switches to more easily scale address lookup.

Post reply on HN