Simon Walter wrote: > On 10/30/20 3:19 AM, Bernard Rosset via Dng wrote: >>> That said, I've stopped using unbound and I'm using straight BIND as my >>> local resolver lately. It's pleasant. >> >> From what we discovered about unbound during one of the meetings, I >> clearly do not trust that technology. > > What meetings? Is it possible to divulge some more info WRT what you > discovered? I am curious.
curious here too, unbound has always been considered somewhat secure. there's also an recent independent security audit (link from unbound site), so this would be interesting to know, please share.. :) using bind mainly as authoritative in servers, although it seems really heavy and tbh don't like the fact that bind's almost a monopoly... also heard nice things about knot - will probably give it a try sometime soon... anyway, using almost exclusively unbound in pcs, as local caching dns.. seems to me lighter/easier to configure than dnsmasq. and iirc, most linux distros have moved to unbound as well.. 2c. d.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
