Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 22:15:24 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-security-local@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and ntp issuse Message-ID: <20160603191523.GE75630@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <44lh2mi0k5.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <20160602122727.GB75625@zxy.spb.ru> <44lh2mi0k5.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:34:18PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> writes:
>
> > Default install with local_unbound and ntpd can't be functional with
> > incorrect date/time in BIOS:
> >
> > Unbound requred correct time for DNSSEC check and refuseing queries
> > ("Jul 1 20:17:29 yellowrat unbound: [3444:0] info: failed to prime
> > trust anchor -- DNSKEY rrset is not secure . DNSKEY IN")
> >
> > ntpd don't have any numeric IP of ntp servers in ntp.conf -- only
> > symbolic names like 0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org, as result -- can't
> > resolve (see above, about DNSKEY).
>
> I can't see how this would happen. DNSSEC doesn't seem to be required in
> a regular install as far as I can see. Certainly I don't have any
I don't know reasson for enforcing DNSSEC in regular install.
I am just select `local_unbound` at setup time and enter `127.0.0.1` as
nameserver address.
> problem on any of my systems, and I've never configured an anchor on the
> internal systems.
>
> > IMHO, ntp.conf need to include some numeric IP of public ntp servers.
>
> Ouch; that's a terrible idea, for several different reasons.
What else?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160603191523.GE75630>