Re: 2 Questions - forward zone and DNS firewalling

2018-10-25 Thread Crist Clark
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:57 PM Grant Taylor via bind-users < bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote: > On 10/25/18 2:34 PM, N6Ghost wrote: > [snip] > > > next, we where a bind shop but switched to infoblox for some stuff and > > now out grew it. and are going back to bind. > > > > but we started using

Re: Enforcing minimum TTL...

2018-10-25 Thread Grant Taylor via bind-users
On 10/25/2018 09:27 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Use a browser that maintains its own address cache tied to the HTTP session. That is the only way to safely deal with rebinding attacks. Rebinding attacks have been known about for years. There is zero excuse for not using a browser with such

Re: Enforcing minimum TTL...

2018-10-25 Thread Mark Andrews
Use a browser that maintains its own address cache tied to the HTTP session. That is the only way to safely deal with rebinding attacks. Rebinding attacks have been known about for years. There is zero excuse for not using a browser with such protection. > On 26 Oct 2018, at 12:02 pm, Grant

Enforcing minimum TTL...

2018-10-25 Thread Grant Taylor via bind-users
Is there a way to enforce a minimum TTL? My initial searching indicated that ISC / BIND developers don't include a way to do so on a matter of principle. I'd like to enforce a minimum TTL of 5 minutes (300 seconds) on my private BIND server at home. I'm wanting to use this as a method to

Re: Queries regarding forwarders

2018-10-25 Thread Grant Taylor via bind-users
On 10/25/2018 06:26 PM, Lee wrote: If you're using those addresses internally it makes sense to filter them from 'outside'. That's what I thought. I play those games at times also :) So it sounds like what I was missing is that you like a challenge & are using more address space that I

Re: Queries regarding forwarders

2018-10-25 Thread Lee
On 10/25/18, Grant Taylor via bind-users wrote: > On 10/25/2018 03:25 PM, Lee wrote: > >> I'm missing what filtering out things like benchmarking & documentation >> network addrs gets you beyond maybe saving some bandwidth? > > I do use all sorts of IP ranges (test networks extensively) in my

forward zone

2018-10-25 Thread Frédéric Lochon
Hello, I'm new to this list, but I use BIND for quite some time. I have a machine running BIND which is authoritative for some domains I own and is the nameserver for my home network. Thus: - BIND answers to any query from my home network - BIND answers to queries from the whole planet Earth

Re: 2 Questions - forward zone and DNS firewalling

2018-10-25 Thread Grant Taylor via bind-users
On 10/25/18 2:34 PM, N6Ghost wrote: I want to move a core namespace to the load balancer but i want them to let me assign them a new zone thats internally authoritative and use it as the LB domain. which would be: cname name.domain.com -> newname.newzone.domain.com they want: cname

Re: Queries regarding forwarders

2018-10-25 Thread Grant Taylor via bind-users
On 10/25/2018 03:25 PM, Lee wrote: I feel like I'm missing something :( I'll see if I can fill in below. I read this https://medium.com/@brannondorsey/attacking-private-networks-from-the-internet-with-dns-rebinding-ea7098a2d325 and used RPZ to block anything coming from outside that might

Re: Queries regarding forwarders

2018-10-25 Thread Lee
On 10/24/18, Grant Taylor via bind-users wrote: > On 08/09/2018 01:01 AM, Lee wrote: >> it does, so you have to flag your local zones as rpz-passthru. > > Thank you again Lee. You gave me exactly what I needed and wanted to know. you're welcome :) > I finally got around to configuring my RPZ

2 Questions - forward zone and DNS firewalling

2018-10-25 Thread N6Ghost
Hi All, have two questions first, I am not a huge fan of using forwarding zones and our "load balancing" team, has there zone delegated to them in a way that needs an internal forward zone to work properly on the inside and not rely on on internet POP. I want to move a core namespace to the

Re: Question about visibility

2018-10-25 Thread G.W. Haywood via bind-users
Hi there, On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Grant Taylor wrote: On 10/24/2018 06:15 AM, G.W. Haywood via bind-users wrote: A server on a non-standard port is often neglected.? Its security may be less well maintained than one that is intentionally public. Why and how do you make that correlation?