From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 3 14:10:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63495CD6 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:10:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5478626F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r33EA1Jo082384 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r33EA18q082383; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:10:01 GMT Message-Id: <201304031410.r33EA18q082383@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Maxim Konovalov Subject: Re: conf/177607: named.conf comment to slave root suggests potentially dangerous BIND configuration X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Maxim Konovalov List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:10:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR conf/177607; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Maxim Konovalov To: Mark Knight Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conf/177607: named.conf comment to slave root suggests potentially dangerous BIND configuration Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:00:20 +0400 (MSK) > Sorry, typo in my mail address - should be markk@knigma.org. > > In the proposed patch - allow-query { localnets; }; would be better than > localhost. I still think it better to make this example more robust. > I corrected your address in the Reply-To header. I still think that our named.conf is not a BIND security guide. But this is just my opinion and I leave the PR. Still, don't understand why the PR has Severity serious and Priority high if we are speaking about the commented out example (even uncommented it won't hurt anybody) in the daemon that doesn't run by default. -- Maxim Konovalov