Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:03:38 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@palomine.net>, Przemyslaw Frasunek <venglin@freebsd.lublin.pl>, <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-01:18.bind Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0101311958340.790-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200102010154.f111sYE23275@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > :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 > > Yah, that's the ticket... kinda like wu-ftpd was created because existing > ftpd's weren't up to snuff, except wu-ftpd turned out to have literally > dozens of rootable exploits. > > Just because BIND's loopholes are advertised doesn't mean that other > DNS servers don't have loopholes. While I agree that some of the newer > ones almost certainly have *fewer* rootable loopholes, maybe, I don't > see them as improving my risk factors much. > > -Matt Heh, that's what I said to myself after 8.2.2-P5 came out, so I stopped using djbdns and switched back to bind. After the recent batch of BIND bugs, I've learned my lesson. I guess I should give BIND 9 a chance, though. After all, all the important holes in BIND have been parts of the dnssec code, not parts of the core BIND functionality. <cringes at the irony of dnssec causing thousands of boxes to be rooted> Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.31.0101311958340.790-100000>