From owner-freebsd-security Tue May 16 5:22: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from closed-networks.com (closed-networks.com [195.153.248.242]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42D2737B700 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 05:22:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from udp@closed-networks.com) Received: (qmail 7455 invoked by uid 1021); 16 May 2000 12:26:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:25:31 +0100 From: User Datagram Protocol To: Stuart Henderson Subject: Re: pid file for named Message-ID: <20000516132531.M2139@closed-networks.com> Reply-To: User Datagram Protocol References: <20000516131606.C16398@naiad.eclipse.net.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000516131606.C16398@naiad.eclipse.net.uk>; from stuart@eclipse.net.uk on Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:16:06PM +0100 X-Echelon: MI6 Cobra GCHQ Panavia MI5 Timberline IRA NSA Mossad CIA Copperhead Organization: Closed Networks Limited, London, UK Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:16:06PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 06:48:05AM -0500, Frank Tobin wrote: > > One often wishes to run daemons such as named under other users, e.g., > > bind:bind. In order to allow bind to write out zones and associated fun > > stuff correctly, one then does a > > For dns, surely djb's servers are a better choice where > security is a priority? > I have no firm figures, just subjective time perception, but a box running djb's dnscache seemed a heck of a lot slower than another box running regular BIND at doing reverse lookups... The machines are both running 4.0-RELEASE and are of comparable spec. -- Bruce M. Simpson aka 'udp' Security Analyst & UNIX Development Engineer WWW: www.closed-networks.com/~udp Dundee www.packetfactory.net/~udp United Kingdom email: udp@closed-networks.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message