<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Zarthan South <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zarthan@gmail.com">zarthan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div></blockquote></div><div>It is less confusing to everyone if you just XXX out the middle two octets as in 192.XXX.XXX.15</div>
</div></blockquote><div>
<br></div></div></div><div>I don't see any reason to obscure a NATed IP address. Does this present some sort of vulnerability or risk? </div><div><div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>While an internal NATed address isn't a vulnerability in itself it is a piece of information that can be used when mounting an attack. If you always use the XXX to block out a NATed address you won't forget when you post that type information from work where it can be used. The poster obviously wanted to conceal their address hence my suggestion. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeah, I was just trying to understand how a NATed address could be used, as you say, by an attacker. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>