From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 06:18:29 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B951C9A for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D85311CDF for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id n12so4464907wgh.12 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:18:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EVVXdvV8nMxPPH7IUQjxGDFzwj5t3JqUmHpEO3imyhw=; b=oYGDJsm8DOrfxBbQ+en+CWffafga08xIWMHYYjCFnV2cGo6qb/kBAP+OqG6xE30ClX 0bLvMCdaFvaOqbnyoa/icLWED4hxkO9W5mLm7RxynI4qxjp+TKTXp2pC7Hyi+dTS2Uc2 xI9OwEy1n0GXKnUeyrNE0T1cWPqiJPZWMNon59g/zJaiX6Dbs5w3g5IHvrXv0aUymEHo owg+KmgUUhPkcEzkxMLrxNqmJ1oad/M7lgkHfIYrDOP/Rg+ybnRt8SS/IeiMxRnNbJaR Ms8nIOaqbJ5QUXiknDuoXLFti1/IQq4g15F88arVEtyOyrsL6kLtxtU0dCgG+S7Q4S4S 9qkg== X-Received: by 10.194.202.230 with SMTP id kl6mr16403153wjc.9.1390717107315; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:18:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.30.169 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:17:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <97A0F01F-3E78-47D6-BDD6-ECE45D1BC45C@gmail.com> References: <52E40CC4.6090401@fjl.co.uk> <201401252137.50132.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <52E41619.1000505@fjl.co.uk> <97A0F01F-3E78-47D6-BDD6-ECE45D1BC45C@gmail.com> From: "Jack L." Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:17:47 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why was nslookup removed from FreeBSD 10? To: Matthew Pherigo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Frank Leonhardt , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:18:29 -0000 Many systems have removed nslookup from the base system so FreeBSD removing it is nothing new. At first, I was pretty annoyed but it makes sense that bind should not be part of the base system unless it's purpose is to serve as a DNS server. For all other users, installing bind-utils is fine. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Matthew Pherigo wro= te: > To my understanding, almost half of all the security vulnerabilities in t= he entire lifetime of the FreeBSD project have been from BIND. Personally, = I'd say that's "pretty spectacular." > > --Matt > >> On Jan 25, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Frank Leonhardt wrote: >> >>> On 25/01/2014 19:37, Mark Tinka wrote: >>> On Saturday, January 25, 2014 09:13:08 PM Frank Leonhardt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Unbelievable, but true - someone somewhere thought that >>>> removing nslookup from the base system was the way to >>>> go. >>>> >>>> Why? Can anyone shed any light on how this decision was >>>> made? >>> If you read: >>> >>> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.0R/relnotes.html >>> >>> Under the "2.3. Userland Changes" section, you will notice: >>> >>> "BIND has been removed from the base system. >>> unbound(8), which is maintained by NLnet Labs, has >>> been imported to support local DNS resolution >>> functionality with DNSSEC. Note that it is not a >>> replacement of BIND and the latest versions of BIND >>> is still available in the Ports Collection. With >>> this change, nslookup and dig are no longer a part >>> of the base system. Users should instead use >>> host(1) and drill(1) Alternatively, nslookup and >>> dig can be obtained by installing dns/bind-tools >>> port. [r255949]" >>> >>> So install /usr/ports/dns/bind-tools and you're a happy guy. >>> >>> As to the philosophy of it all, no point arguing. Fait >>> accompli. >>> >>> Mark. >> As you and Waitman both pointed out, nslookup IS part of BIND, yet as I = said in the diatribe following the question in my post, so is "host" and th= at's still there. Also Windoze has nslookup but doesn't include BIND. I agr= ee there's no point arguing unless you know the rational behind what appear= s an arbitrary decision; hence my question. Was this simply an oversight or= is there a thought-out reason for it that one can take issue with? >> >> IIRC, nslookup was present in 4.3BSD, and I'm pretty sure it existed bef= ore that. (That's BSD, not FreeBSD). Its relied on in scripts. The reason f= or dropping it from the base system must be pretty spectacular. >> >> FreeBSD 10.0 might be better known as FreeBSD Vista, at this rate. >> >> Regards, Frank. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.= org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg"