With NAT, traffic going from the VM to the Host, if the right IP address is used, would look like localhost traffic. I'd say bridged is better, because if you have a decent firewall on the Host that blocks incoming connections as well, instead of applications trying to act as a server (which the default Windows firewall does), you would be protected from an attack from the VM.
May 2011, 00:16 Primary OS: MS Windows 7 VBox Version: PUEL Guest OSses: xp win7 In your post, please describe the difference in the way they function and anwser these questions bellow:ġ- Which (NAT or Bridged) is safer and why?Ģ- How would I configure it to work that way?ģ- Is NAT a 2 way firewall that stops the host and its netowrk from communicating with guest and vice versa?Ĥ- And if so, how effective is it? -Note that i am not interested in theoreticals such as 'everything can be bypassed', if its extremely unlikely then that will suffice. Its not supposed to be a debate, so I only prefer feedback from knowledgeable folks on this subject. Please only post if you have solid FACTS and experience concerning this. I hope to be able to get to the bottom of this once and for all with your help and leave this as a future reference to anyone having the same questions.
I have read numerous posts that give very conflicting information and 'opinions' on which networking method is safest: (NAT or Bridged).
The idea here is the peace of mind of Virtualbox acting as a robust sandbox that successfully isolates what's inside and also its aility to quickly revert changes. Such an approach is out of the question and doesn't anwser the topic. I disagree with anyone who says 'treat your VM like a real machine and install AV+firewall' this defeats the purpose of having a VM for testing suspicious code. The issue here is I want to be able to avoid cross infection with the host while at the same time, connect the VM the internet. I want to safely test driveby domains in an XP VM.
0 kommentar(er)
