What about BIND 9.3.4 in FreeBSD in base system ?

[Doug Barton]

Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Chris Marlatt wrote:
>>> Doug Barton wrote:
>>>> plan to MFC it after 4 or 5 days. I am actually considering only
>>>> MFC'ing it to RELENG_6 to help provide some incentive for those on 5.x
>>>> to upgrade.
>>>>
>>> One would assume that the release would be supported up until the EOL 
>>> provided on freebsd.org of May 31, 2008.
>> Yes, but whether a full upgrade is needed for "support" or not depends 
>> on your definition. Given that FreeBSD is not vulnerable to these 
>> issues in its default configuration, one could easily argue that an 
>> upgrade for RELENG_5 isn't necessary.
>>
>> Doug
> 
> 	The subject here is 9.3.4.  All the issues raised
> 	in this thread so far were addressed as of 9.3.2-P2
> 	/ 9.3.3.  To the best of my knowledge these have
> 	already been addresed.
> 
> 	There are two new issue for 9.3.4. 
> 
> 	CVE-2007-0494 which is only a problem if you are
> 	doing DNSEC validation.
> 
> 	CVE-2007-0493 which any recursive 9.3.x (x<4) named 
> 	is vulnerable.

Both of these are problems if you allow untrusted users access to the 
name server (likely if you're in a production environment). The way 
FreeBSD ships, named is off, and the example configuration files are 
set up to create a recursive resolver that only listens on 127.0.0.1. 
I would expect that users who rely on BIND in a production setting to 
either have upgraded to FreeBSD 6-stable, be using the port, or some 
other custom configuration, or both.

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection