When will this debate every end? Many people who are respected online and on TV. Have brainwashed people into thinking that a NAT router is all you need to keep your internet connection safe. For some reason they have always left out the part about outbound protection!! I thought a layered approach to security was always best? Isn't what is leaving your machine just as important as what is trying to get in? I'd think this might be one way to detect spyware. This is also a last defense against trojans trying to access out to their masters. Is process protection not important? Are these people who people look up to as experts going to tell me. That malware writers can't or haven't tried to piggy back on legitimate services? Are these same "experts" going to tell me that a NAT routers firmware has never been exploited or contained flaws that could be exploited? Wouldn't a software firewall be a good back up in this case? Isn't this why many in the security field state to have layered protection? In case one layer fails. The other keeps you secure. So why do we constantly see the debate of - is a NAT router enough? Because people love to debate and argue of course. But in the end some of these debates end up confusing end users. To the point were these end users may in fact be less secure. I'm not saying NAT is easily exploited. I'm not saying that NAT isn't a good security measure. I just think it needs to be complimented with a good layered security approach. Unfortunately many end users are easily influenced. They will in fact also be persuaded by celebrity. Well so and so is on TV and they said to do this. So and so in the newspaper said to do this. Well did these people state this was their personal preference? Did they state all the facts, risk and options? Yes in a TV show you have limited time to handle questions. But does this make it ok to skip important facts on a subject? Especially when a users pc security is at stake? I think many forget to some users $60 is a lot of money. Is buying a NAT or a good software firewall more bang for your buck? If you ask me the software firewall gives you more for your money if your on a budget. Some would say. But software firewalls can be disabled. I've seen the claim. But never seen anyone who could show it done in a real world situation. This is also were process protection comes into play. Does this mean that it couldn't be done? NO!! Is there a 100% full proof security measure out there? NO!! But most people don't lock their doors and leave their windows unlocked. So why would you do this with your pc? A NAT router doesn't cover all the bases. It also isn't fool proof. Having a software firewall only or as a backup is good security. A software firewall and NAT router compliment each other security wise. They should be used together as a layer
