this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
13 points (84.2% liked)
networking
3389 readers
1 users here now
Community for discussing enterprise networks and the ensuing chaos that comes after inheriting or building one.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my mind, I figured that an attacker would sidestep binding to L3 at all, and would just craft raw L2 packets that contain TCP headers with src_addr of every possible address in the subnet. But that too would require elevated privileges, so point taken.
That said, using most of the same general scenario where S is blitheringly unsecured against internal threats -- under the false pretense that NAT somehow provides security -- a DNS rebinding attack that uses an unwitting user's web browser to proxy Mallory's traffic to S could succeed. Maybe not SSH per-se, but any internal service that S is hosting would be vulnerable.
This isn't an attack that's per-se exacerbated by NAT, but a good-and-proper firewall config at the network and on S would easily protect against this, which is why I mention it. If NAT is believed to be "security", then almost certainly the firewall configuration will be overlooked and attack vectors will be left open.
Typically you’d just run a bind C2 implant on the User machine that reaches out to the attackers C2 servers to retrieve cached commands to execute. Yeah NAT isn’t going to stop it, but tbh a stateful firewall isn’t really gonna stop it either.