Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:33:54 -0800 From: Waitman Gobble <gobble.wa@gmail.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why was nslookup removed from FreeBSD 10? Message-ID: <CAFuo_fyJtSL=adMoJXDZNY14GLYia49bhXDe9SL=-hsCvhKTYw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52E426B8.3080905@fjl.co.uk> References: <52E40CC4.6090401@fjl.co.uk> <201401252137.50132.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <52E41619.1000505@fjl.co.uk> <20140125202038.125a4264@gumby.homeunix.com> <52E426B8.3080905@fjl.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Frank Leonhardt <frank2@fjl.co.uk> wrote: > On 25/01/2014 20:20, RW wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:52:57 +0000 >> Frank Leonhardt wrote: >> >> >> 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 that's still there. >>> >> >From the host manpage: >> >> COMPATIBILITY >> host aims to be reasonably compatible with `host' utility from >> BIND9 distribution, >> > > Yes - I read that too, and assumed it means it's a derived work until I'd > checked the source code. It's contributed, but part of ldns and not bind. > By removing bind from the base system in favour of ldns based stuff, it > could mean that its just the case that no one wrote an ldns version of > nslookup or dig; only host. This is one of my theories as to the answer. > > It's worth noting that one of the criticisms I've heard of nslookup has > been that it DOESN'T use BIND as a resolver and works in its self-contained > way, and is therefore not valid as a DNS (meaning BIND) debugging tool. > However, it should mean that it's stand-alone - hence the Windoze port > (which used to contain incriminating strings showing it was pinched from > BSD!) > > So if you prefer a slightly rephrased question: Why has someone written > "host" for FreeBSD 10.0 but neglected to provide nslookup (or dig)? > > As to Matt's comment that "almost half of all the security vulnerabilities > in the entire lifetime of the FreeBSD project have been from BIND. > Personally, I'd say that's "pretty spectacular."" - I'd say that's these > security vulnerabilities are more to do with DNS the protocol rather than > BIND the implementation. Whoever would have thought that criminals would > have got their hands on computers? By removing BIND and not replacing it > with anything (apart from a local resolver) will, I guess, meet your > security needs. But I'm talking about nslookup, not the whole of BIND and > all its utilities. I've never heard of a security problem with nslookup. > Except, of course, with the Micro$soft version ;-) > > There must be a discussion about how the decision was taken somewhere, > mustn't there? If there isn't, its looking like an accident. > > 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" > I believe the reasoning.. because BIND is a full-featured authoritative name server (and much more), unbound has a much more narrow aim. unbound also has BSD license. (ISC is similar). Anyway, So far I like my experimental BIND10 authoritative nameserver much better than my BIND9 servers, but I can't see how BIND10 would ever be part of base. That wouldn't work. -- Waitman Gobble San Jose California USA 510-830-7975
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFuo_fyJtSL=adMoJXDZNY14GLYia49bhXDe9SL=-hsCvhKTYw>