[vardump]

> If I did that, I’d either have to install firewalls on my devices, or expose all services running on my devices to the internet.

Your router could still firewall them all the same. NAT or no NAT. You would not need to have a firewall on each individual device.

[AmericanChopper]

So you can replace the security controls provided by NAT with security controls provided by a firewall. How does this support the argument that NAT doesn’t provide any security controls?

[vardump]

NAT is not meant for security. It just unintentionally provides some by preventing inbound connections.

That's something you can circumvent in certain scenarios. The technique is called "NAT hole punching".

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> It just unintentionally provides some by preventing inbound connections.

No, it doesn't.

[vardump]

Of course you should also have a properly configured firewall.

Relying on NAT alone for security is not a great idea.