> Any network engineer will tell you that NAT is an illusion of security.
That "illusion" was pretty damn effective at taking Windows, around '00, from "pwned in minutes, no user action required" to "won't get pwned unless you click the wrong thing".
Sure, but it's still handy that consumer routers with no extra config protect the smart washing machines connected to them from drive-by unpatched remote exploits, just by having NAT on by default.
Could be true, these days. Didn't used to always be, at least on consumer hardware, though I've not seen a non-NATing Internet-connected consumer network in most of two decades.
That "illusion" was pretty damn effective at taking Windows, around '00, from "pwned in minutes, no user action required" to "won't get pwned unless you click the wrong thing".