Re: Exempt .local from dnssec validation on resolver?

2019-07-26 Thread Mark Andrews
One may also want to disable synth-from-dnssec to prevent this NSEC record
synthesising a negative response.

loans.  4070IN  NSEClocker. NS DS RRSIG NSEC

If named gets a query for a name in the covered range it will learn the
NSEC record and will synthesise a negative response if there isn’t a cached
positive entry between the looked up name and loans.  The IETF decided to
not make a delegation at .local to break the chain of trust.

Mark

> On 26 Jul 2019, at 7:10 am, Evan Hunt  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 09:03:26PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> In 9.11, no.  In 9.14, you can use "validate-except { local; };"
> 
> (Afterthought: In 9.11, you can also use "rndc nta" to suppress validation
> on a given domain, but negative trust anchors expire after a while, so you
> have to keep doing it over and over.  You could sign the ".local" zone and
> distribute a trust anchor for it to all of your internal resolvers.  So, I
> shouldn't have said "no". But the simple fire-and-forget method that you
> seemed to be looking for was not introduced until 9.14.)
> 
> -- 
> Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
> ___
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
> from this list
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Exempt .local from dnssec validation on resolver?

2019-07-25 Thread Evan Hunt
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 09:03:26PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
> In 9.11, no.  In 9.14, you can use "validate-except { local; };"

(Afterthought: In 9.11, you can also use "rndc nta" to suppress validation
on a given domain, but negative trust anchors expire after a while, so you
have to keep doing it over and over.  You could sign the ".local" zone and
distribute a trust anchor for it to all of your internal resolvers.  So, I
shouldn't have said "no". But the simple fire-and-forget method that you
seemed to be looking for was not introduced until 9.14.)

-- 
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Exempt .local from dnssec validation on resolver?

2019-07-25 Thread Evan Hunt
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:52:18PM -0800, John Thurston wrote:
> Is there any way to tell my resolver it shouldn't be validating 
> responses for foo.local?

In 9.11, no.  In 9.14, you can use "validate-except { local; };"

-- 
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Exempt .local from dnssec validation on resolver?

2019-07-25 Thread John Thurston
For historical reasons we have some forward-zones defined on our 
resolver (v9.11.9). For example:

 zone foo.local {type forward; forwarders { 10.1.2.3; };
 zone bar.local {type forward; forwarders { 10.4.5.6; };

These are obviously invalid TLDs, and are defined on servers over which 
I have no influence or control. The difficulty is if my named.conf contains:

  dnssec-validation auto;

then I'm unable to return records for things like a.foo.local, and my 
log contains info-messages of the sort:


---
lame-servers: info: insecurity proof failed resolving 
'foo.local/SOA/IN': 10.1.2.3#53


dnssec: info: validating foo.local/SOA: got insecure response; parent 
indicates it should be secure

---

Is there any way to tell my resolver it shouldn't be validating 
responses for foo.local?


Or must I assert authority over .local and delegate authority for 'foo' 
and 'bar' back to the servers which are already answering for them?




--
   Do things because you should, not just because you can.

John Thurston907-465-8591
john.thurs...@alaska.gov
Department of Administration
State of Alaska
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users