John Peach wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:16:49 -0500 > "TJ" <trej...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> The SOX auditor ought to know better. Any auditor that >>> requires NAT is incompenent. >> Sadly, there are many audit REQUIREMENTS explicitly naming NAT and >> RFC1918 addressing ... > > SOX auditors are incompetent. I've been asked about anti-virus software > on UNIX servers and then asked to prove that they run UNIX.........
Not just SOX. I vaguely remember something in PCI about NAT. It wouldn't surprise me if every auditing thing involving computers said something about requiring NAT. See my earlier comment about NAT=firewall. ~Seth
