| 1 |
Håkon Alstadheim wrote: |
| 2 |
> Crayon Shin Chan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Friday 11 May 2007 18:48, jarry@×××.net wrote: |
| 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 |
>> If the OP doesn't need any bind-specific feature then why not use djbdns |
| 10 |
>> which has a better security track record. djb software are built from the |
| 11 |
>> ground up to be secure (as is possible), he also splits the "program" |
| 12 |
>> into smaller executables, each having a specific job thus making each of |
| 13 |
>> them secure a simpler task. Whilst bind and sendmail have made |
| 14 |
>> substantial efforts to be more secure, they are still built on legacy and |
| 15 |
>> bloated monolithic code. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> Just to fill in the picture a bit, the djb* software also has a long |
| 19 |
> "flip-the-bird-at-any-rfc-you-don't-like" track-record. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I generally agree with Håkon on this. :-). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The other issue is that djb likes to abandon his software after it's |
| 25 |
"done". Things like DNSSEC and dynamic updates don't exist in djbdns and |
| 26 |
aren't planned. They don't matter so much if you're just doing |
| 27 |
authoritative DNS, but if you're doing interesting thing on your network |
| 28 |
Bind is pretty much required. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
kashani |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives