On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, Chris Smith wrote:
> From: Chris Smith
> To: Stuart Henderson
> Cc: OpenBSD-Misc
> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 22:09:00
> Subject: Re: Unbound in base, yes, what about ldns?
...
> How about this line added to rc.conf.local when using the package
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> You can uninstall the package if you don't need it, or you can keep it
> if you do need it (for example, for drill or the ldns-* tools).
How about this line added to rc.conf.local when using the package:
syslogd_flags="${syslogd_flags} -
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:41:37PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> Kind-of; things will work properly if the validator is enabled now, and it's
> less bad than having /var/unbound/etc writable, but would really prefer to not
> have anything at all in the chroot be writable by the unprivileged _
On 2014/03/21 09:30, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
> > See the thread "unbound dnssec revisited" I started on 12/30/2013 for
> > some hints. Looks like creating a new directory with the proper
> > permissions is the best way to go.
>
> Now fixed in -curr
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
> See the thread "unbound dnssec revisited" I started on 12/30/2013 for
> some hints. Looks like creating a new directory with the proper
> permissions is the best way to go.
Now fixed in -current with a /var/unbound/db directory. Thanks Stuart!
On 2014-03-19, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Kenneth Westerback
> wrote:
>> The unbound in base has it's own cut down version of ldns. No need for
>> the package.
>
> Can I just uninstall the package after the fact or do some files need
Thanks.
2014-03-20 1:44 GMT+02:00 Chris Smith :
> See the thread "unbound dnssec revisited" I started on 12/30/2013 for
> some hints. Looks like creating a new directory with the proper
> permissions is the best way to go.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Àòàíàñ Âëàäèìèðîâ
> wrote:
> > Hi
See the thread "unbound dnssec revisited" I started on 12/30/2013 for
some hints. Looks like creating a new directory with the proper
permissions is the best way to go.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Атанас Владимиров wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry for Off-topic, but when you enable DNSSEC validation an
Hi,
Sorry for Off-topic, but when you enable DNSSEC validation and fetch a root
key with unbound-anchor(8) (needs root) the following error shows up in
/var/log/messages:
unbound: [0:0] error: could not open autotrust file for writing,
/etc/root.key.29136-0: Permission denied
May be this is becau
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Kenneth Westerback
wrote:
> The unbound in base has it's own cut down version of ldns. No need for
> the package.
Can I just uninstall the package after the fact or do some files need
to be replaced?
Thanks,
Chris
On 19 March 2014 18:09, Chris Smith wrote:
> Great to see Unbound in base, thanks.
>
> But what about ldns? I still have that installed as a package -
> removed the unbound package as per the -current instructions, but
> shouldn't the ldns package package be removed as well as
Great to see Unbound in base, thanks.
But what about ldns? I still have that installed as a package -
removed the unbound package as per the -current instructions, but
shouldn't the ldns package package be removed as well as I believe
unbound requires it and therefore it would have to be bui
> The primary cause of this is unbound is not a drop-in replacement for
> bind, they use different utilities, like unbound use drill, and bind use
> dig and friends.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but that could be a problem with replacing
bind by unbound but not with linking unbound to the buil
On 11/23/2013 04:29 PM, Martijn Rijkeboer wrote:
Hi,
Just out of curiosity, what is holding the linking of Unbound to the
build back? I'm not complaining since I'm using Unbound from ports
without issues.
I asked the question before.
The primary cause of this is unbound is not a drop-in repl
Hi,
Just out of curiosity, what is holding the linking of Unbound to the build
back? I'm not complaining since I'm using Unbound from ports without issues.
Kind regards,
Martijn Rijkeboer
2012/3/26 Jakob Schlyter :
> Any more feedback on this? We need more testing to proceed!
Unbound has been imported to work on in-tree (not yet linked to the
build) [1]. It compiles and functions on amd64 and i386. I can only
guess who is actually working on further integrating this tool in
base. T
Any more feedback on this? We need more testing to proceed!
jakob
2012/3/14 Jakob Schlyter mailto:ja...@kirei.se)>:
> Could you provide an update complete tarfil for review by other developers?
I think we should start considering importing this.
Latest iteration:
http://gateway.hydroxide.nl/OpenBSD/unbound-wip.9.tar.gz
Current status includes work on suggesti
* Bjvrn Ketelaars [2012-02-15 18:04]:
> 2012/2/15 Ralf mailto:r...@ackstorm.de)>:
>
> > I haven't gotten the DNSSec to work, so I ran with module-config:
> > iterator. But I'm not too familiar with DNSsec, so I might have done
> > something wrong on that part. And I cheated a bit when compiling a
14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 14:31 P>Q Oliver Peter :
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:23:01PM +0400, Mo Libden wrote:
> > 14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov :
> > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
> > > Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Why replacing
Hello,
bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl (Bjvrn Ketelaars), 2012.02.15 (Wed) 10:23 (CET):
> > > From unbound-anchor.8 I understand that unbound-anchor can be run from the
> > > command line, or run as part of startup scripts _before_ the actual
> > > (unbound)
> > > DNS server is started. So there is
> > From unbound-anchor.8 I understand that unbound-anchor can be run from the
> > command line, or run as part of startup scripts _before_ the actual
> > (unbound)
> > DNS server is started. So there is no need for DNS. Proposal therefor is to
> > run unbound-anchor automatically before starting
2012/2/15 Ralf mailto:r...@ackstorm.de)>:
> I have briefly tested your tarball on hppa yesterday. It compiles
> and works so far.
>
Nice to hear :-)
> I haven't gotten the DNSSec to work, so I ran with module-config:
> iterator. But I'm not too familiar with DNSsec, so I might have done
> someth
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:16:15 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-02-14, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> > unbound-control should be renamed to more convenient 'unboundctl'.
>
> and break scripts that are meant to work with cross-OS deployments?
nah, he is talking bout convinience, not sani
On 2012-02-14, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> unbound-control should be renamed to more convenient 'unboundctl'.
and break scripts that are meant to work with cross-OS deployments?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012, Vitali wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Peter van Oord van der Vlies
> > Why replacing bind ?
> https://www.isc.org/software/bind/advisories/cve-2012-1033
Bad CVE choice...
That's a design issue in DNS, not a vulnerability in BIND.
And if you want to throw CVEs a
Henning Brauer wrote [2012-02-14 13:52+0100]:
> anything depending on PYTHON
MY WOMAN!
> (gimme a break)
Aeh.
Man.
> will never make it into base anyway.
If it were true!
--steffen
* Peter van Oord van der Vlies [2012-02-14
09:11]:
> Why replacing bind ?
1) because it's shit (yes yes vixie, the next release won't be written
by drunken grad students and fix all design and implementation issues,
we hear that since bind4 at least)
2) it's a dead end anyway - i have neve
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:23:01PM +0400, Mo Libden wrote:
> 14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov
:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
> > Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Why replacing bind ?
> >
> > Because bind is full of security related bugs a
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:23:01 +0400
Mo Libden wrote:
> 14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov
> :
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
> > Peter van Oord van der Vlies
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Why replacing bind ?
> >
> > Because bind is full of security related bugs
On 2012 Feb 14 (Tue) at 13:23:01 +0400 (+0400), Mo Libden wrote:
:14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov
:
:> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
:> Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
:>
:> > Hello,
:> >
:> > Why replacing bind ?
:>
:> Because bind is full of security related bugs and
14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov :
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +
> Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Why replacing bind ?
>
> Because bind is full of security related bugs and a bloatware.
Oh come on!
They say about the same thing about sendmail f
Let's not crosspost replies, misc is more suitable for this one.
CCs trimmed.
On 2012/02/14 08:09, Peter van Oord van der Vlies wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why replacing bind ?
The version we have is in need of an update. Due to some of the design
decisions made for BIND 10 that's not really going to be
2012/2/13 Stuart Henderson :
...
>> After tar/gzip the source files and Makefile wrappers weigh ~4.6MB. A bit
to
>> large to send to this list. if anyone feels like looking at the workb&do
not
>> hesitate to mail me.
>
> Please do. It would be nice to put them on a public server.
>
WIP can be foun
elaars [mailto:bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl]
> Verzonden: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:35 PM
> Aan: misc@openbsd.org
> ; t...@openbsd.org
> Onderwerp: Unbound in base
>
> Hello,
>
> After some recent discussions [1, 2] on the topic of unbound in base,
> and (more importan
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Peter van Oord van der Vlies
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why replacing bind ?
That's a good question, Peter. Welcome aboard.
https://www.isc.org/software/bind/advisories/cve-2012-1033
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Peter
--
### Coonardoo - PQP8P=P8QP:P0 Q QQP=Q / The Well
Hello,
Why replacing bind ?
Kind Regards
Peter
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Bjvrn Ketelaars [mailto:bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl]
Verzonden: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:35 PM
Aan: misc@openbsd.org
; t...@openbsd.org
Onderwerp: Unbound in base
Hello,
After some recent discussions
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0100
BjC6rn Ketelaars wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After some recent discussions [1, 2] on the topic of unbound in base,
> and (more important) really liking the idea of an alternative for
> BIND in base, I made a start with fitting the different pieces of the
Hello,
After some recent discussions [1, 2] on the topic of unbound in base, and
(more important) really liking the idea of an alternative for BIND in base, I
made a start with fitting the different pieces of the puzzle. What is
finished:
1.) Integration of ldns 1.6.12 and unbound 1.4.15 and
39 matches
Mail list logo
