Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> This quite from Twitter seems appropriate: DNSSEC only protects you from
> getting bad answers. If someone wants you to get no answers at all then
> DNSSEC cannot help.
That wasn't from Twitter, that was from me on NANOG.
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-Nov
In message <564be747.40...@tnetconsulting.net>, Grant Taylor writes:
> On 11/17/2015 03:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Given the root zone is signed and most of the TLD's are also signed
> > there is little a rogue operator can do besides causing a DoS if
> > you validate the returned answers.
>
On 11/17/2015 03:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Given the root zone is signed and most of the TLD's are also signed
there is little a rogue operator can do besides causing a DoS if
you validate the returned answers.
This quite from Twitter seems appropriate: DNSSEC only protects you
from getting
On 11/17/2015 03:02 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Or, the IP formerly used as a root server could turn malicious and start
offering an alternate response. This would only impact resolvers that
had outdated root hints, and also happened to try that particular IP
first, but it's at least a theoretical ris
On 11/17/2015 04:10 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
No default route to Internet, internal-root architecture; when you think this through,
it's pretty obvious that the ability to explicitly specify "hints" is a
mandatory feature of any enterprise-strength DNS product.
There is noting that preven
On 11/17/2015 02:21 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
It's important that they're exclusive - it would be very much harder to
build an isolated test bed (with "fake" root hints) if BIND insisted on
always trying to reach all of the compiled-in root hints.
Valid point. Thanks Ray.
Otherwise, I might be te
On 11/17/2015 02:15 AM, Cathy Almond wrote:
If someone *could* maliciously replace a file on your DNS server with a
blank one, you have more problems than just a blank root hints file
don't you?
Very likely. But not guaranteed. }:->
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
_
riginal Message-
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S D Yao
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:25 AM
To: Ray Bellis
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: root hints operation
On 2015-11-17 04:21, Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 17/11
In message <564ba6e9.2050...@hireahit.com>, Dave Warren writes:
> On 2015-11-17 14:13, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message <564ba3e3.9060...@hireahit.com>, Dave Warren writes:
> >> On 2015-11-16 18:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
> >>> It's my understanding that ALL of the root servers would have to
> >>>
On 2015-11-17 14:13, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <564ba3e3.9060...@hireahit.com>, Dave Warren writes:
On 2015-11-16 18:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
It's my understanding that ALL of the root servers would have to
change all of their addresses at the same time for DNS to be impacted.
Or, the IP f
In message <564ba3e3.9060...@hireahit.com>, Dave Warren writes:
> On 2015-11-16 18:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > It's my understanding that ALL of the root servers would have to
> > change all of their addresses at the same time for DNS to be impacted.
>
> Or, the IP formerly used as a root serve
On 2015-11-16 18:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
It's my understanding that ALL of the root servers would have to
change all of their addresses at the same time for DNS to be impacted.
Or, the IP formerly used as a root server could turn malicious and start
offering an alternate response. This would
On 2015-11-17 04:21, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 17/11/2015 02:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 11/16/2015 06:56 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
You either specify a hints file to use, or use the compiled-in root
hints.
Interesting. I was not aware that it was an exclusive or type
situation.
It's important that
On 17/11/2015 02:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 06:56 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> You either specify a hints file to use, or use the compiled-in root
>> hints.
>
> Interesting. I was not aware that it was an exclusive or type situation.
It's important that they're exclusive - it would be ve
On 17/11/2015 02:31, Grant Taylor wrote:
...
> The idea that a (maliciously) blank root.hints file would prevent BIND
> from using the compiled in version is new to me.
If someone *could* maliciously replace a file on your DNS server with a
blank one, you have more problems than just a blank root
On 11/16/2015 07:20 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
Did you think it combined the file with the built-in list?
I hadn't given much thought to how the built in would or would not be
combined with the contents of the root.hints file.
I always took it that BIND would fall back to the compiled in vers
In article ,
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 06:56 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > You either specify a hints file to use, or use the compiled-in root
> > hints.
>
> Interesting. I was not aware that it was an exclusive or type situation.
Did you think it combined the file with the built-in list
On 11/16/2015 06:56 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
You either specify a hints file to use, or use the compiled-in root
hints.
Interesting. I was not aware that it was an exclusive or type situation.
Since the beginning of DNS, there has not been enough change to root
hints so as to cause operational p
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:37:36PM -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
> In light of the upcoming H-root server changing addresses I wanted
> to confirm how BIND uses root hints.
>
> It's my understanding that BIND has a compiled in version of the
> root hints -and- a root hints file that can easily be u
In light of the upcoming H-root server changing addresses I wanted to
confirm how BIND uses root hints.
It's my understanding that BIND has a compiled in version of the root
hints -and- a root hints file that can easily be updated. This
information is used to prime named as it starts up in su
20 matches
Mail list logo
