Skip to main content
Super User

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 2
    @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen An application running on a local device would initiate the actual connection in this attack method. The NAT router doesn’t even see this connection.
    – Daniel B
    Commented Aug 22, 2023 at 8:47
  • 2
    _ Of course it will be vulnerable to attack from the LAN. However, if it is on a trusted LAN this is not an issue:_
    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    Commented Aug 22, 2023 at 9:10
  • 7
    @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen Did you even read the answer and the linked paper? Do you understand the attack vector?
    – Daniel B
    Commented Aug 22, 2023 at 9:30
  • 5
    If another machine on the internal network is already compromised, what difference does it make if the XP machine is subsequently attacked? It's too late already. Either you have an even more vulnerable machine you shouldn't have, or a more secure machine that got compromised anyway. Either way, you have bigger problems.
    – Atario
    Commented Aug 23, 2023 at 0:33
  • 4
    @Atario I wouldn't call the "proxy" machine compromised in this case. Again, I suggest reading the paper.
    – Daniel B
    Commented Aug 23, 2023 at 4:39