From owner-freebsd-security Wed Jan 31 17: 2: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from shemp.palomine.net (shemp.palomine.net [205.198.88.200]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A5DD37B69D for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:01:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 90301 invoked by uid 1000); 1 Feb 2001 01:01:42 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:01:42 -0500 From: Chris Johnson To: Przemyslaw Frasunek Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-01:18.bind Message-ID: <20010131200142.A90211@palomine.net> References: <200101312123.f0VLNL134920@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010201014819.H675@riget.scene.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010201014819.H675@riget.scene.pl>; from venglin@freebsd.lublin.pl on Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:48:19AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:48:19AM +0100, Przemyslaw Frasunek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:55:18PM +0200, Roman Shterenzon wrote: > > Why not make it default in the base system? > > The best workaround is not using BIND at all. Consider some alternatives, > like /usr/ports/net/djbdns. Yes! Why work around BIND limitiations and do all this sandboxing to try to limit the damage it can do to you, when there's a better alternative? Chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message