[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-18 17:14:38 +0100]: > > > > Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm > > asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is > > still bind8 I think... > > What is "convenient" about bind8? That is a serious question and not > meant to be snide. Please educate me. > > With the many security advisories that have been posted against bind8 > recently I find bind9 much more convenient since I have not needed to > update those servers as often. > > Perhaps you did not know that bind9 uses the exact same configuration > file as bind8 in almost all cases? Unless you are doing something > strange you don't need to change your configuration files at all.
Hmm. Searching CERT: bind4: 10 results bind8: 19 results bind9: 21 results tinydns+dnscache: 2 results This was with only "Advisories" and "Vulnerability Notes" checked and, admittedly, I didn't read the results in any detail. I personally use tinydns+dnscache, but that's for a small home LAN and I didn't have too much invested in BIND when I made the switch, but certainly these results seem to indicate that if security is *the* major concern in a DNS installation it's probably a good idea to stay away from BIND altogether. Gary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
