On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:35 PM, David Ford wrote: > can we have a paradigm shift from ISC please? instead of falling over > dead with insist/assert, please bleat a warning and drop the problematic > issue on the floor instead and press on with business. many BIND DoS > attacks (and zone typos) are very effective for just this reason.
I had exactly this discussion with someone this morning -- I made the observation that many / most of the recent security issues made BIND fall over with an INSIST(), and perhaps trying harder to recover would be good… It was (very convincingly!) explained to me that INSISTS() are only used for the "this should not happen" cases, and if the INSISTS() were not there, many of the recent attacks may have led to much worse things like buffer overflows / more worrying security issues (and that the push for INSIST() was directly from this sort of thing in 8.x…). Those who know me personally know it is often hard to dissuade / educate me (especially when I'm in happy rant mode), but in this case it worked… W > > :) > > _______________________________________________ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users > _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
