Re: Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories
On 30 July 2013 14:42, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: For years, a lot of security advisories have been present for bind. I'm just guessing if it's not a good idea to remove bind from base? This will probably free by half the number of FreeBSD SA's in the future. Sure, but no bind in base also implies no dig, nslookup or host. Exactly. It's a slippery slope - if we continue removing useful functionality from FreeBSD there are fewer and fewer arguments for why one should use FreeBSD and not Linux. Having lots of third-party software in base is not one of those reasons however. Yes, I know everything can be installed from packages/ports. Two of *my* main reasons for using FreeBSD is that: 1. It's an integrated *system*, not just a kernel. That's not an argument for retaining something that is non-essential for most people and can easily be installed from ports. There is very little that is actually essential in base... having to turn sendmail off on every new installation already does my nut in but having mail facilities is essential, so it has to be there. Having bind in base does have one advantage in that it is more carefully scrutinised that it would likely be in ports. 2. The base system contains a lot of the useful functionality I need. So does ports. and every contrib part which is removed, detracts from this. No, it doesn't. The base system should be just that - a base minimal installation. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories
On 30 July 2013 16:58, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote: On 30.07.13 18:26, Peter Maxwell wrote: On 30 July 2013 14:42, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Yes, I know everything can be installed from packages/ports. Two of *my* main reasons for using FreeBSD is that: 1. It's an integrated *system*, not just a kernel. That's not an argument for retaining something that is non-essential for most people and can easily be installed from ports. There is very little that is actually essential in base... having to turn sendmail off on every new installation already does my nut in but having mail facilities is essential, so it has to be there. I am surprised why so many people insist having an MTA is necessary, but having well testes recursive DNS resolver is not. Even on a typical client installation, it is more likely the resolver will be useful, than the MTA. Sendmail - or something equivalent - is required to handle system mail from things like system utility scripts, e.g. periodic. A caching or recursive DNS resolver, strictly, is not essential. Given the number of SAs in bind, it would arguably be better positioned in ports from an upgrade point of view. By the way, both sendmail and BIND are off by default... No, sendmail is on by default, cf. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/mail-changingmta.html It's only inbound SMTP handling that is default off. To turn sendmail off completely, you need to do something like set sendmail_enable=NONE in your rc.conf and have a replacement already setup. Having bind in base does have one advantage in that it is more carefully scrutinised that it would likely be in ports. This too.. I have always viewed FreeBSD not as an product, but instead as an toolkit. A toolkit, from which to build the OS you need. So far, FreeBSD has worked better for that purpose than any other toolkit around (plus, I am biased). It's less useful as a toolkit when you need to upgrade, say, sshd or openssl but for whatever reason cannot upgrade the base system... it can be quite a bit of hassle managing the ports version while you've still got the base version there. It's not difficult but it's still a pain; when you're dealing with hundreds of servers, every corner-case makes ongoing maintenance harder. My position would be that if it is third-party and not absolutely essential, it should be in ports. There are a number of knobs, that let you customize FreeBSD to your heart's content. Eh, hmmm, sort of. As above, some things require upgrading the base system which can be a bit of an issue in production environments when you cannot arrange a suitable maintenance window - a scenario that is very common indeed. You are then forced to start using ports to replace the functionality in base and it all gets rather non-standard and messy. In theory, everything but the absolute minimum of the base system might be removed.. and have everything depend on ports. However, the base system is just that -- one collection of code that gets built and tested together. This brings quality. Yet, as the OP pointed out: bind is not what I would term quality, there's more SAs posted than I've had hot dinners. Given it is non-essential, it could quite easily be stripped out. Having said this, it is perfectly ok to replace BIND with any other resolver + name server as long as there is suitable candidate that has passed enough testing. Is there one? Do we know enough of their quirks? That's not a good idea: any environment larger than a home network or SME that relies on bind will not find it easy to migrate. It's one thing asking people to tolerate a 2min inconvenience to make a choice to install bind from ports (when they've can also choose bind or, say, djbdns, etc), it's quite another to suggest to them they should be using different software, essentially on a whim. I personally prefer qmail over sendmail but I wouldn't suggest qmail should be in base for the reason that sendmail is the de facto standard on *nix shaped systems. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories
On 30 July 2013 21:03, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote: On 30.07.2013, at 19:49, Peter Maxwell pe...@allicient.co.uk wrote: I personally prefer qmail over sendmail but I wouldn't suggest qmail should be in base for the reason that sendmail is the de facto standard on *nix shaped systems. One can argue that BIND is the de facto standard on *nix shaped systems too Yes, that is precisely my point, the preceding sentences to what you quoted... That's not a good idea: any environment larger than a home network or SME that relies on bind will not find it easy to migrate. It's one thing asking people to tolerate a 2min inconvenience to make a choice to install bind from ports (when they've can also choose bind or, say, djbdns, etc), it's quite another to suggest to them they should be using different software, essentially on a whim. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Problem entering GELI password at boot
I've seen similar behaviour recently intermittently on releng-9.1 on an laptop (HP) with USB keyboard, and like you said I had also seen it a number of years ago when 8.0 first came out with a desktop with USB keyboard (iirc, it was an HP as well). It seems fine most of the time but occasionally it won't respond to keyboard input, especially if I've accidentally left the computer for a few moments before attempting to enter the passphrase. Vaguely remember it was something to do with AHCI but it was years ago and given it's not a massive problem the now I haven't bothered to look it up again. On 21 July 2013 14:55, pe...@freenet.de wrote: Hi, I recently up consists of a ZFS RAID-1 upon a GELI-encrypted container. Before the update I could enter the passphrases during boot (before root mount) via my USB keyboard and geli would created the nodes and root could be mounted. In 8.0 I had a related problem (some keystrokes would not be recognized) but this has been fixed since. Now the keyboard is functional (I can scroll up and down) but GELI doesn't recognize anything (not even 'return'). Any ideas or hints? Thanks! --- Alle Postfächer an einem Ort. Jetzt wechseln und E-Mail-Adresse mitnehmen! http://email.freenet.de/basic/Informationen ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 8.1 xl + dual-speed Netgear hub = yoyo
On 21 October 2011 16:00, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: ...snip... Both connections were using the same (short) Cat5 cable, I tried two different ports on the 10/100 hub, and other systems work OK on that 10/100 hub. How do I get this interface to operate properly at 100MB? ...snip... Auto-negotiation is a nightmare, and *will* cause you problems. The best you can do is try to try to set every device using the switch to 100Mbps full, if that doesn't work buy a proper switch. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
