unsubscribe
BIND 9.5.0-P2-W1 is now available.
This is a WINDOWS-SPECIFIC update to the second security patch for BIND
9.5.0. It addresses long-standing scalability issues in the socket code
for Windows that were exposed by the changes in BIND 9.5.0-P1 and -P2.
This release contains no code cha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In response to a posting "Re: Two DNS Servers inside a firewall"
> Mark Andrews wrote on September 5:
>
>
>> Below is a example of such a bad delegation. The last SOA
>> record should be owned by www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au not
>> lawlink.nsw.gov.au. It res
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 10:32, Saulo Medeiros de Araújo wrote:
> Hello to eveyone!
> I trying to solve the DNS Cache Snooping vulnerabilty, detected by Nessus,
> but i'm having some dificuties.
>
> I found in my searchs some safer BIND configurations to prevent cache
> snooping attacks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Chris Buxton wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>>> If you are hosting zones to the Internet, then create a separate
>>> view
>>> for that (call it e.g. "hosting" or "external"),
Chris Buxton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>> zq wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a problem about view {} with recursion option.I want the
>>> server query
>>> all the domains in the internal.But it can't.
>>>
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A question on the severity. Am I reading it correctly that it
> > ranks from low to high as follows:
> > dynamic, debug, info, notice, warning, error, dynamic? Thanks!
>
> Low to high is:
>
> info (default)
> notice
>
> A question on the severity. Am I reading it correctly that it
> ranks from low to high as follows:
> dynamic, debug, info, notice, warning, error, dynamic? Thanks!
Low to high is:
info (default)
notice
warning
error
critical
Hi Jeff,
the second define isn't needed, only FD_SETSIZE.
As for "ulimit", just check if your Bind processes has the limit set
(see output of "plimit".
Best regards,
Milan
Jeffrey Collyer pÃÅ¡e v út 09. 09. 2008 v 10:55 -0400:
> I have recompiled with
>
> -DFD_SETSIZE=8192 -DISC_SOCKET_FDSE
In response to a posting "Re: Two DNS Servers inside a firewall"
Mark Andrews wrote on September 5:
> Below is a example of such a bad delegation. The last SOA
> record should be owned by www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au not
> lawlink.nsw.gov.au. It results in SERVFAIL being returned.
>
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vincent Poy wrote:
> > Thanks, I have a question. Is there somewhere on the net that has
> something
> > explaining the different variables and options for the logging config
> since
> > in Unix, everything is sent to the systemlog
Vincent Poy wrote:
> Thanks, I have a question. Is there somewhere on the net that has something
> explaining the different variables and options for the logging config since
> in Unix, everything is sent to the systemlog but with Windows, it's another
> story. Also, other than the different file
On 08-Sep-2008, at 22:50 , zq wrote:
>/* make named use port 53 for the source of all queries, to
> allow
> * firewalls to block all ports except 53:
> */
>query-sourceport 53;
>query-source-v6 port 53;
This has nothing to do with the problem you're t
Disabling that option in Windows didn't help. I'm still getting spammed
with the same message?
Can you anybody please advice?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:14 PM
To: BIND
I have recompiled with
-DFD_SETSIZE=8192 -DISC_SOCKET_FDSETSIZE=8192
and set the shell script that starts bind with
ulimit -n 8192.
I'll see if I get any more crashes.
Jeff
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:56:13 -0400,
> Jeffrey Collyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Run
On Aug 5 2008, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>For those who've seen a crash of recent beta versions on entry of
>resolver.c:resquery_response() like this:
>
>17-Jul-2008 13:20:48.425 general: resolver.c:5494: REQUIREquery) !=
>((void *)0)) && (((const isc__magic_t *)(query))->magic == ((('Q') <<
Hello to eveyone!
I trying to solve the DNS Cache Snooping vulnerabilty, detected by Nessus,
but i'm having some dificuties.
I found in my searchs some safer BIND configurations to prevent cache
snooping attacks. So i've inserted those following lines in my named.conf
file:
acl "trusted" {
10
17 matches
Mail list logo
