Re: bind in jail?

2004-09-15 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:03:51PM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone said > Now should bind run in a chroot'd environment, an entry using a remote > exploit in bind would be contained inside the confines of the chroot > jail. In theory damage can be compartmentalized to the directory > hosting the jail.

Re: bind in jail?

2004-09-13 Thread Paolo Alexis Falcone
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:29:39 +0200, Olav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op ma 13-09-2004, om 07:03 schreef Paolo Alexis Falcone: > > > > On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 05:42:55 +0200, Olav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do most people who run bind or bind9 on Debian, recompile the program to > > > run in a

Re: bind in jail?

2004-09-13 Thread Olav
Op ma 13-09-2004, om 07:03 schreef Paolo Alexis Falcone: > On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 05:42:55 +0200, Olav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do most people who run bind or bind9 on Debian, recompile the program to > > run in a chroot environment ("jail")? Or perhaps, should this not be > > necessary in Sar

Re: bind in jail?

2004-09-12 Thread Paolo Alexis Falcone
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 05:42:55 +0200, Olav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do most people who run bind or bind9 on Debian, recompile the program to > run in a chroot environment ("jail")? Or perhaps, should this not be > necessary in Sarge because it has other defenses in place? There's no need to reco

bind in jail?

2004-09-12 Thread Olav
Do most people who run bind or bind9 on Debian, recompile the program to run in a chroot environment ("jail")? Or perhaps, should this not be necessary in Sarge because it has other defenses in place? Running bind this way is a recommendation that you can often read about. I also wonder what the *