| 1 |
Crayon Shin Chan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 11 May 2007 18:48, jarry@×××.net wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Poor security of bind is imho similar superstition as it is |
| 6 |
>> for sendmail: once in the past this software had some problem, |
| 7 |
>> so now a lot of people think they should forever avoid using it... |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If the OP doesn't need any bind-specific feature then why not use djbdns |
| 11 |
> which has a better security track record. djb software are built from the |
| 12 |
> ground up to be secure (as is possible), he also splits the "program" |
| 13 |
> into smaller executables, each having a specific job thus making each of |
| 14 |
> them secure a simpler task. Whilst bind and sendmail have made |
| 15 |
> substantial efforts to be more secure, they are still built on legacy and |
| 16 |
> bloated monolithic code. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Just to fill in the picture a bit, the djb* software also has a long |
| 20 |
"flip-the-bird-at-any-rfc-you-don't-like" track-record. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Håkon Alstadheim |
| 24 |
spamtrap: finnesikke@×××××××××××××××.no -- 1 hit & you are out |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives