Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:48:39 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?) Message-ID: <4FF8D8E7.5060409@bluerosetech.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF8CA35.7040209@FreeBSD.org> References: <CA%2BQLa9B-Dm-=hQCrbEgyfO4sKZ5aG72_PEFF9nLhyoy4GRCGrA@mail.gmail.com> <4FF2E00E.2030502@FreeBSD.org> <86bojxow6x.fsf@ds4.des.no> <89AB703D-E075-4AAC-AC1B-B358CC4E4E7F@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8C3A1.9080805@FreeBSD.org> <0AFE3C4A-22DB-4134-949F-4D05BBFC4C6C@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8CA35.7040209@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-07-07 16:45, Doug Barton wrote: > Also re DNSSEC integration in the base, I've stated before that I > believe very strongly that any kind of hard-coding of trust anchors as > part of the base resolver setup is a bad idea, and should not be done. > We need to leverage the ports system for this so that we don't get stuck > with a scenario where we have stale stuff in the base that is hard for > users to upgrade. Considering the current root update cert bundle has a 20-year root CA and 5-year DNSSEC and email CAs, I don't think it's unreasonable to maintain a copy of icannbundle.pem in the source tree or simply rely on the copy built into unbound-anchor.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FF8D8E7.5060409>