Re: BIND less restrictive modes and policy

[Andrew Farris <lordmorgul gmail com>]

Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue January 22 2008, Andrew Farris wrote:
> > Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> > > On 01/22/2008 03:17 AM, Andrew Farris wrote:
> > > > Enrico Scholz wrote:
> > > > > Adam Tkac <atkac redhat com> writes:
>
> > I'm assuming now that:
> >  >>> This is bad. Only the slaves/ and data/ (for DDNS) dirs must be
> >  >>> writable.
> >
> > is necessary to function
> >
> >  >>> pz/ and the other parts of the chroot filesystem must be read-only for
> >  >>> named.
> >
> > is not necessary, only 'a good idea', a change to which you are against
>
> Making / read-only for bind is also not necessary for bind to work and also a 
> good idea. The problem is, that it is a very rare case that something needs 
> to be restricted to make something work.

Which is precisely why I asked for clarification when it sounds like he was 
claiming it needed to be restricted (not likely to be needed).

> Therefore the best approach is to 
> disallow/restrict everthing by default and only allow what is necessary to 
> make it work, but not more.

No arguments here.

> Regards,
> Till


--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul gmail com> <ajfarris gmail com>
 gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----