-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Right, you know that, I know that, figured someone else might not.
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bill Broadley (firstname.lastname@example.org
>> I'd suggest adding caching in there somewhere, probably assumed.
> I've yet to find a nameserver package of any sort, recursive,
> authoritative, or even merely forwarding, that doesn't do caching.
>> Agreed. Large ISPs (like pacbell) often have overloaded DNS, not to mention
>> the DNS is often on the wrong end of a busy network.
> That's only the beginning of their problems. To the predominant
> dog-slow performance would add pervasive cache poisoning, e.g., the
> quality of being a security menace, as the next obvious problem to
> mention. But better to just skip them.
Good to know.
>> I suggest unbound.
> I like Unbound, despite its relative youth. PowerDNS Recursor is also
> good, and perhaps a bit better tested. I would also consider MaraDNS.
> I'm extremely happy with the authoritative-only server published for
> quite a while by the same .nl TLD people who've more recently followed
> up with Unbound, FWIW.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that fairly often some random site gets popular,
>>> It'll also improve performance over using OpenDNS,
>> Sort of. For cache hits, yes. For cache misses, not to much.
> Obviously, I was talking about cache hits -- which predominate if you
> run a recursive nameserver for a long while.
over loaded even, and then is not in your cache.
Both good points. Opendns does try to give you protection against various
>> Sure, so only your ISP instead of opendns and your ISP knowing everywhere you
> The problem of your upstream link(s) being able to traffic analysis on
> where your packets are sent to, and inspection in cases where you don't
> bother to encrypt them, is a separate problem. But you knew that.
> Also, unlike OpenDNS, they have fiduciary obligations to you under
> contract. But you knew that, too.
other things, depending on your choices you get any collection of:
* no protection/blocking
* protection/blocking against phishing
* protection/blocking against porn
* protection/blocking against illegal activity
* protection/blocking against social networking sites.
> Use OpenDNS, and a party who owes you no loyalty whatsoever has a
> central record of all DNS queries your IP has attempted.
Yup. Although I'd expect that the IP they give you for a typo'd domain
>> NXDOMAIN does bug me, I believe that optional if you login/create an account.
> That deliberate RFC violation _should_ bug you. It's essentially saying
> "Nothing but the Web counts. Correct DNS information for SMTP mail
> doesn't matter, because it's not the Web."
doesn't have an SMTP port open. There is the option to select:
* Enable typo correction (and NX Domain redirection)
So it's up to you, I agree I wish the default was the other way.
They seem pretty friendly and well implemented.
> I'm not clear on why a login would remove that misfeature. They use the
> ads on their "Site not found" Web pages to generate the revenue stream
> that underwrites the service.
Dunno, seems to be gaining significant ground lately. .gov and .org are in
>> Oh, almost forgot. I'd recommend unbound as a local caching recursive
>> server. It's DNSSEC and DLV aware....
> I'm no DJB fan, but I think he's right about the reasons why DNSSEC is
> never going to be used on any significant enough scale to matter. The DLV
> lookaside kludge (that partially works around lack of a signed root
> zone) to an overengineered and impractical based spec strikes me as just
> another deck-chair on the sinking ship.
the dlv, as well as a bunch of others top level domains (granted none as
popular as .com.) DNS is really important and many people place much more
trust in it than they should.
I agree that DNSSEC is scarily useless today, a shared key means you have to
control both client and server.... rare. The DLV fixes this, with just a 1-2
line change to your local DNS you can take advantage of anyone using DLV. Say
even to verify the contents of this email from paypal, gmail, or an even from me.
I don't have any numbers, but my domains have the serial number around 850.
> I don't know why I should trust DLV repositories (Trust Anchor
> repositories), and the largest one that makes something like a
> meaningful effort to validate that they belong to whom they claim to
> (ISC's) had a whopping total of 25 DLV records in it a year ago, when I
> last looked into this. (SecSpidor collects DLVs, but doesn't validate
Seems reasonable to trust dlv.isc.org if you trust isc.org. Nothing stops you
from running your own dlv if you so choose, I've seen a couple collections of
dlv records that could easily be downloaded as needed. If anyone has a good
idea of how many domains are using DLV please speak up.
The cost of adding 1-2 lines to a local dns config is IMO worth the cost of
> So, good luck making that stuff practical and useful. Do send a
> postcard. ;->
admission. If you trust iana/itar you can grab their anchors with a handy
script that grabs ftp://iana.org/itar/anchors.mf and checks a pgp signature.
Much easier if you can trust the .org's DNS response ;-).
I've added the server side support to DLV to a few domains, seems worth it
just so I can be sure I'm talking to them when I'm accessing them remotely.
Sure my most important communications happen via ssl or openssh, but it's nice
to have extra protection for dns lookups as well.
So basically I recommend unbound for your laptop/desktop and enabling dlv with
someone you trust (I trust isc.org).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----