Re: OT: Re: WANAL (Re: What could have been done differently?)
What do you think of OpenBSD still installing BIND4 as part of the default base system and recommended as secure by the OpenBSD FAQ ? (See Section 6.8.3 in <http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#DNS> )
i think that bind4 was relatively easy for them to do a format string audit on, and that bind9 was comparatively huge, and that their caution is justified based on bind4/bind8's record in CERT advisories, and that for feature level reasons they will move to bind9 as soon as they can complete a security audit on the code. (although in this case ISC and others have already completed such an audit, another pass never hurts.)
On 1/28/03 11:57 AM, "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> wrote:
What do you think of OpenBSD still installing BIND4 as part of the default base system and recommended as secure by the OpenBSD FAQ ? (See Section 6.8.3 in <http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#DNS> )
i think that bind4 was relatively easy for them to do a format string audit on, and that bind9 was comparatively huge, and that their caution is justified based on bind4/bind8's record in CERT advisories, and that for feature level reasons they will move to bind9 as soon as they can complete a security audit on the code. (although in this case ISC and others have already completed such an audit, another pass never hurts.)
It is my understanding that this process has been completed, and BIND9 should ship as the default OpenBSD named in the 3.3 release: http://deadly.org/article.php3?sid=20030121022208&mode=flat We've been running BIND9 from the ports tree for over two years now and are *very* happy with performance/stability. Mike
participants (2)
-
Mike Lewinski -
Paul Vixie