Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hiding/obscuring version.bind

2016-09-10 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
Hmm. Ideally then with 'NO_ID' we shouldn't forward Chaosnet queries for *.bind. Can we just get away with the equivalent of 'local=/bind/' or is that too broad a brush to apply by default in the code? I can see me digging into how the code for 'local' works in my near future :-) On 09/09/1

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hiding/obscuring version.bind

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Kelley
Applied. Something to think about: with this in effect, queries to *.bind get treated like all others, ie they get forwarded upstream, so the requestor may get an answer from an upstream nameserver. I've added a comment to this effect to the definition of NO_ID. Cheers, Simon. On 07/09/16 11:

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hiding/obscuring version.bind

2016-09-07 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
Attached (in case the git send-email didn't work) Kevin :-) On 06/09/16 21:23, Simon Kelley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 a) I tend to agree that it's pointless. b) Not a run-time option, there are too many of those already. c) Maybe the simplest solution is something

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Hiding/obscuring version.bind

2016-09-06 Thread Simon Kelley
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 a) I tend to agree that it's pointless. b) Not a run-time option, there are too many of those already. c) Maybe the simplest solution is something like a NO_ID compile time option that suppresses the whole .bind domain thing? Certainly happy to take

[Dnsmasq-discuss] Hiding/obscuring version.bind

2016-09-06 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
Hi Simon & all, There has been a bit of activity on the security front in LEDE and a recent change proposed removing version numbers from software to avoid it leaking to 'the bad guys'. I'll say upfront that I'm not a fan of this approach feeling that it's more of the 'security through obscur