D&C Lug - Home Page
Devon & Cornwall Linux Users' Group

[ Date Index ][ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] secure ftp?



Uhhho,

On Wednesday 10 April 2002 1:32 pm, Jon Still wrote:

Try telling that to the ISC, Nominium, IANA or any of the other folks who
run the root nameservers.  From what I know from my source at
ISC/Nominium, the root nameservers are BIND 9.

they are also behind the highest securty networks, routers and packet filters 
you will ever meet; they also run on some very very juicy hardware :)

I bet your one of those weird people who runs djbdns aren't you *duck* :)

Ouch! you just found my funnybone and hit it with a hammer :)

I've been watching the dns talks on here recently and managed to keep my mouth 
shut for the sake of sanity, i even tried to write something about it before 
and the power failed just as I was about to send it :)

Ohhh yes - djbdns all the way, I've had variuos run ins with BIND.  It crased 
regulalry, sucked lots of memory, and has more holes than anyhtign i've ever 
known.  It was also hacked and hacked to hell to fix all the bugs found to 
the point just fixing one bug would cause another one.

A few years back i knew and worked with a large hosting company, and one of 
the services they offered were RaQ's (eww, yes) - from cobalt.  They all came 
installed with BIND on their dodgy Redhat/Cobolt mess of linux, and updated 
themselfes daily from a central server, so software was always up to date.  
You can probably guess where this is leading - every single one of their 
boxes (about 3,000 of them) had been hacked by a script, the root password 
changes, and a back door installed. Yumm.  ISC didn't even know about the 
vunrability at this point.

Thats just one story I know of first hand, their are many, many more that are 
bind related.  BIND is vunrable to lots of things, even when it is secure, 
cache positiong is a big one. bind9 users report it crashing on portscans, 
and writing over zone files. Based on binds expoit history, the chances of 
their being a remote root exploit in it within any one year is somethign 
silly like 500% ;)

How many lines of code are their in bind 9? how mnay are there in bind 8? how 
many are there in djbdns? how much memory does 12.5k records take up once 
loaded into memory with bind and djbdns? djb also offers a $500 dollar to 
someone who finds an explot in djbdns, something which still has not been 
claimed a few years later. It's never had a security problem.

bind9, although it is a complete re-wrtite still has lots of problems, it just 
isn't secure - look at the latest changelog for bind9's release history too 
see, from people I know and have worked with, i know It crashes just as much 
or in some cases more than bind8, it eats lots of memory and can't handle the 
huge load it's sometimes needed to handle.

in a major percentage of DoS attacks i deal with, the unix boxes involved in 
the attack are running bind.. in nearly all of the rooted boxes i deal with 
for customers, it's because of a bind vunrability  Sad but true. In the eyes 
of any serious security manager or sysadmin i know, bind is a real joke, it 
certianly is to me.

Yeah, djb is a tosser [1] and i really don't like what i know of him or the 
attitude he shows, but one good thing about him is the code he writes, it's 
some of the best around, certianly very secure, compact, and maintainable.  
The only other thing about djbdns is it's license, which is a bit odd, though 
not a problem to anyone running it, just distributing it/changes.

I have had dnscache running for over a year now on some of our reverse servers 
(and that was only restarted because of a kernel upgrade) , I have not had to 
touch it *once*, and they often handle over 400 lookups a second.  Its still 
only using 2mb ram a year later. Can anyone claim that for bind?  one copy of 
tinydns i'm running is using under 2 mb of ram for 11,543 records.  it's also 
a lot faster/non-cpu-intensive than BIND - how mnay lookups per second can 
BIND handle, and how many secs CPU does it use for that?

In my eyes, anyone running bind (or sendmail or wu-ftpd) should have their 
license to run anyhting on internet revoked - not to menton you need three 
degrees in astrophysics to configure it :) *duck* :p

Hey - dns-server wars i've known are almost as vicious as editor wars 
(*shouting out* LONG LIVE NANO!) :)) 

~ theo, the bind hater ;)

[1] - For the some entertainment, take a look at the thread at:
 <http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00459.html>

-- 

Theo Zourzouvillys
Research and Development
Notnet Limited

If you learn one useless thing every day, in a single year you'll learn
365 useless things.


--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.


Lynx friendly